[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-jiang-dhc-sedhcpv6) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

DHC Working Group                                               S. Jiang
Internet-Draft                              Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track                                   L. Li
Expires: October 26, 2016                                         Y. Cui
                                                     Tsinghua University
                                                               T. Jinmei
                                                           Infoblox Inc.
                                                                T. Lemon
                                                           Nominum, Inc.
                                                                D. Zhang
                                                          April 24, 2016


                             Secure DHCPv6
                       draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-12

Abstract

   The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) enables
   DHCPv6 servers to pass configuration parameters.  It offers
   configuration flexibility.  If not secured, DHCPv6 is vulnerable to
   various attacks.  This document analyzes the security issues of
   DHCPv6 and specifies the secure DHCPv6 mechanism for authentication
   and encryption of messages between a DHCPv6 client and a DHCPv6
   server.

Status of This Memo

   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 October 26, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   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 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.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Issues of DHCPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Secure DHCPv6 Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  New Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Support for Algorithm Agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  DHCPv6 Client Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  DHCPv6 Server Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Relay Agent Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Processing Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.1.  Timestamp Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Extensions for Secure DHCPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.1.  New DHCPv6 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       10.1.1.  Certificate Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       10.1.2.  Signature option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       10.1.3.  Timestamp Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       10.1.4.  Encrypted-message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  New DHCPv6 Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.3.  Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   14. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   15. Open Issues [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   16. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     16.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     16.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27








Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


1.  Introduction

   The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6, [RFC3315])
   enables DHCPv6 servers to pass configuration parameters and offers
   configuration flexibility.  If not being secured, DHCPv6 is
   vulnerable to various attacks.

   This document analyzes the security issues of DHCPv6 and provides the
   following mechanisms for improving the security of DHCPv6 between the
   DHCPv6 client and the DHCPv6 server:

   o  the authentication of the DHCPv6 client and the DHCPv6 server to
      defend against active attacks, such as spoofing attack.

   o  the encryption between the DHCPv6 client and the DHCPv6 server in
      order to protect the DHCPv6 from passive attacks, such as
      pervasive monitoring.

   Note: this secure mechanism in this document does not protect outer
   options in Relay-Forward and Relay-Reply messages, either added by a
   relay agent toward a server or added by a server toward a relay
   agent.  Communication between a server and a relay agent, and
   communications between relay agents, may be secured through the use
   of IPsec, as described in section 21.1 in [RFC3315].

   The security mechanism specified in this document achieves DHCPv6
   authentication and encryption based on the sender's certificate.  We
   introduce two new DHCPv6 messages: Encrypted-Query message and
   Encrypted-Response message and Four new DHCPv6 options: Certificate
   option, Signature option, Timestamp option and Encrypted-message
   option for DHCPv6 authentication and encryption.  The Certificate
   option, Signature option, Timestamp option are used for DHCPv6
   client/server authentication.  The Encryption-Query message,
   Encryption-Response message and Encrypted-message option are used for
   DHCPv6 encryption.

2.  Requirements Language and Terminology

   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] when they
   appear in ALL CAPS.  When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such as
   "should" or "Should"), they have their usual English meanings, and
   are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key words.







Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


3.  Terminology

   This section defines terminology specific to secure DHCPv6 used in
   this document.

   secure DHCPv6 client:  A node that initiates the DHCPv6 request on a
                   link to obtain the DHCPv6 configuration parameters
                   from one or more DHCPv6 servers.  The configuration
                   process is authenticated and encrypted using the
                   defined mechanisms in this document.

   secure DHCPv6 server:  A node that responds to requests from clients
                   using the authentication and encryption mechanism
                   defined in this document.

4.  Security Issues of DHCPv6

   DHCPv6 is a client/server protocol that provides managed
   configuration of devices.  It enables a DHCPv6 server to
   automatically configure relevant network parameters on clients.  The
   basic DHCPv6 specification [RFC3315] defines security mechanisms, but
   they have some flaws and can be improved.

   The basic DHCPv6 specifications can optionally authenticate the
   origin of messages and validate the integrity of messages using an
   authentication option with a symmetric key pair.  [RFC3315] relies on
   pre-established secret keys.  For any kind of meaningful security,
   each DHCPv6 client would need to be configured with its own secret
   key; [RFC3315] provides no mechanism for doing this.

   For the out of band approach, operators can set up a key database for
   both servers and clients from which the client obtains a key before
   running DHCPv6.  Manual key distribution runs counter to the goal of
   minimizing the configuration data needed at each host.

   [RFC3315] provides an additional mechanism for preventing off-network
   timing attacks using the Reconfigure message: the Reconfigure Key
   authentication method.  However, this method protects only the
   Reconfigure message.  The key is transmitted in plaintext to the
   client in earlier exchanges and so this method is vulnerable to
   active attacks.

   In addition, the current DHCPv6 messages are still transmitted in
   cleartext and the privacy information within the DHCPv6 message is
   not protected from passive attack, such as pervasive monitoring.  The
   IETF has expressed strong agreement that pervasive monitoring is an
   attack that needs to be mitigated where possible in [RFC7258].




Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   In comparison, the security mechanisms defined in this document
   provides for authentication and encryption based on the public key
   certificates of the client and server.  The DHCPv6 authentication can
   protect DHCPv6 from active attacks, such as spoofing attack.  And the
   DHCPv6 encryption defends against passive attacks, such as pervasive
   monitoring attack.

5.  Secure DHCPv6 Overview

5.1.  Solution Overview

   This solution provides authentication and encryption mechanisms based
   on the certificates of the DHCPv6 client and server.  Before the
   standard DHCPv6 configuration process, the Information-request and
   Reply messages are exchanged to select the authenticated DHCPv6
   server.  After mutual authentication between the DHCPv6 client and
   server, the following DHCPv6 configuration process is encrypted to
   avoid the privacy information disclosure.  We introduce two new
   DHCPv6 messages: Encrypted-Query message, Encrypted-Response message
   and four new DHCPv6 options: Encrypted-message option, Certificate
   option, Signature option, Timestamp option.  Based on the new defined
   messages and options, the corresponding authentication and encryption
   mechanisms are achieved.

   The following figure illustrates secure DHCPv6 procedure.  The DHCPv6
   client first sends Information-request message as per [RFC3315].  The
   Information-request message is used to request the servers for the
   servers' certificates information, without going through any address,
   prefix or non-security option assignment process.  The Information-
   request contains no DHCPv6 options except ORO option to avoid
   client's privacy information disclosure.  When receiving the
   Information-request message, the server sends the Reply message that
   contains the server's Certificate option, Signature option, Timestamp
   option and Server Identifier option.  Upon the receipt of the Reply
   message, the DHCPv6 client verifies the server's identity according
   to the contained options in the Reply message.  If there are multiple
   authenticated DHCPv6 server certs, the client selects one
   authenticated DHCPv6 server for the following DHCPv6 configuration
   process.  If there are no authenticated DHCPv6 server cert or
   existing server certs fails authentication, the client should retry a
   number of times.  In this way, it is difficult for a rogue server to
   beat out a busy "real" server.  And then the client takes some other
   alternative action depending on its local policy.

   After the server's authentication, the first DHCPv6 message sent from
   the client to the server, such as Solicit message, contains the
   client's Certificate information for client authentication.  The
   DHCPv6 client sends the Encrypted-Query message to server, which



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   carries the Encrypted-message option and the Server Identifier
   option.  The Encrypted-message option contains the encrypted DHCPv6
   message sent from the client to the server.  When the DHCPv6 server
   receives the Encrypted-Query message, it decrypts the message using
   its private key.  If the decrypted message contains the client's
   Certificate option, the DHCPv6 server verifies the client's identity
   according to the contained client certificate information.

   After the client's authentication, the server sends the Encrypted-
   Response message to the client, which contains the Encrypted-message
   option.  The Encrypted-message option contains the encrypted DHCPv6
   message sent from server to client, which is encrypted using the
   client's public key.  If the message fails client authentication,
   then the server sends the corresponding error status code to the
   client.  During the encrypted DHCPv6 configuration process, the
   Timestamp option can be contained in the encrypted DHCPv6 messages to
   defend against replay attacks.

           +-------------+                           +-------------+
           |DHCPv6 Client|                           |DHCPv6 Server|
           +-------------+                           +-------------+
                  |            Information-request           |
                  |----------------------------------------->|
                  |           Option Request option          |
                  |                                          |
                  |                    Reply                 |
                  |<-----------------------------------------|
                  |             Certificate option           |
                  |             Signature option             |
                  |             Timestamp option             |
                  |         Server Identifier option         |
                  |                                          |
                  |            Encryption-Query              |
                  |----------------------------------------->|
                  |          Encrypted-message option        |
                  |          Server Identifier option        |
                  |                                          |
                  |            Encryption-Response           |
                  |<-----------------------------------------|
                  |          Encrypted-message option        |
                  |                                          |

                          Secure DHCPv6 Procedure








Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


5.2.  New Components

   The new components of the mechanism specified in this document are as
   follows:

   o  Servers and clients that use certificates first generate a public/
      private key pair and then obtain a certificate that signs the
      public key.  The Certificate option is defined to carry the
      certificate of the sender.

   o  A signature generated using the private key which is used by the
      receiver to verify the integrity of the DHCPv6 messages and then
      authentication of the client/server.  Another option is defined to
      carry the signature.

   o  A timestamp that can be used to detect replayed packet.  The
      Timestamp option is defined to carry the current time of the
      client/server.  The secure DHCPv6 client/server need to meet some
      accuracy requirements and be synced to global time, while the
      timestamp checking mechanism allows a configurable time value for
      clock drift.  The real time provision is out of scope of this
      document.

   o  The Encrypted-message option that contains the encrypted DHCPv6
      message.

   o  The Encrypted-Query message that is sent from the secure DHCPv6
      client to the secure DHCPv6 server.  The Encrypted-Query message
      contains the Encrypted-message option and Server Identifier
      option.

   o  The Encrypted-Response message that is sent from the secure DHCPv6
      server to the secure DHCPv6 client.  The Encrypted-Response
      message contains the Encrypted-message option.

5.3.  Support for Algorithm Agility

   In order to provide a means of addressing problems that may emerge in
   the future with existing hash algorithms, as recommended in
   [RFC4270], this document provides a mechanism for negotiating the use
   of more secure hashes in the future.

   In addition to hash algorithm agility, this document also provides a
   mechanism for signature algorithm and encryption algorithm agility.

   The support for algorithm agility in this document is mainly a
   unilateral notification mechanism from sender to recipient.  A
   recipient MAY support various algorithms simultaneously among



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   different senders, and the different senders in a same administrative
   domain may be allowed to use various algorithms simultaneously.  It
   is NOT RECOMMENDED that the same sender and recipient use various
   algorithms in a single communication session.

   If the server does not support the algorithm used by the client, the
   server SHOULD reply with an AlgorithmNotSupported status code
   (defined in Section 10.3) to the client.  Upon receiving this status
   code, the client MAY resend the message protected with the mandatory
   algorithm.

5.4.  Applicability

   In principle, Secure DHCPv6 is applicable in any environment where
   physical security on the link is not assured and attacks on DHCPv6
   are a concern.  In practice, however, it will rely on some
   operational assumptions mainly regarding public key distribution and
   management, until more lessons are learned and more experiences are
   achieved.

   One feasible environment in an early deployment stage would be
   enterprise networks.  In such networks the security policy tends to
   be strict and it will be easier to manage client hosts.  One trivial
   deployment scenario is therefore to manually pre-configure client
   with the trusted servers' public key and manually register clients'
   public keys for the server.  It may also be possible to deploy an
   internal PKI to make this less reliant on manual operations, although
   it is currently subject to future study specifically how to integrate
   such a PKI into the DHCPv6 service for the network.

   Note that this deployment scenario based on manual operation is not
   different very much from the existing, shared-secret based
   authentication mechanisms defined in [RFC3315] in terms of
   operational costs.  However, Secure DHCPv6 is still securer than the
   shared-secret mechanism in that even if clients' keys stored for the
   server are stolen that does not mean an immediate threat as these are
   public keys.  In addition, if some kind of PKI is used with Secure
   DHCPv6, even if the initial installation of the certificates is done
   manually, it will help reduce operational costs of revocation in case
   a private key (especially that of the server) is compromised.

   It is believed that Secure DHCPv6 could be more widely applicable
   with integration of generic PKI so that it will be more easily
   deployed.  But such a deployment requires more general issues with
   PKI deployment be addressed, and it is currently unknown whether we
   can find practical deployment scenarios.  It is subject to future
   study and experiments, and out of scope of this document.




Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


6.  DHCPv6 Client Behavior

   For the secure DHCPv6 client, a certificate is needed for client
   authentication.  The client is pre-configured with a certificate and
   its corresponding private key.  If the client is pre-configured with
   public key but not with a certificate, it can generate the self-
   signed certificate for client authentication.

   The secure DHCPv6 client sends Information-request message as per
   [RFC3315].  The Information-request message is used by the DHCPv6
   client to request the server's identity verification information
   without having addresses, prefixes or any non-security options
   assigned to it.  The Information-request message MUST NOT include any
   DHCPv6 options except ORO option to minimize client's privacy
   information leakage.  The Option Request option in the Information-
   request message MUST contain the option code of the Certificate
   option.

   When receiving the Reply messages from DHCPv6 servers, a secure
   DHCPv6 client discards any DHCPv6 messages that meet any of the
   following conditions:

   o  the Signature option is missing,

   o  multiple Signature options are present,

   o  the Certificate option is missing.

   And then the client first checks the support of the hash function,
   signature algorithm and encryption algorithm that the server used.
   If the check fails, the Reply message is dropped.  If all the
   algorithms are supported, the client then checks the authority of
   this server.  The client also uses the same algorithms in the return
   messages.

   The client validates the certificates through the pre-configured
   local trusted certificates list or other methods.  A certificate that
   finds a match in the local trust certificate list is treated as
   verified.  If the client want to check server's certificate to see
   whether it has been revoked, the OCSP stapling can be used.  The
   message transaction-id is used as the identifier of the authenticated
   server's public key for encryption.  At this point, the client has
   either recognized the certificate of the server, or decided to drop
   the message.

   The client MUST now authenticate the server by verifying the
   signature and checking timestamp (see details in Section 9.1), if
   there is a Timestamp option.  The order of two procedures is left as



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   an implementation decision.  It is RECOMMENDED to check timestamp
   first, because signature verification is much more computationally
   expensive.

   The Signature field verification MUST show that the signature has
   been calculated as specified in Section 10.1.2.  Only the messages
   that get through both the signature verification and timestamp check
   (if there is a Timestamp option) are accepted.  Reply message that
   does not pass the above tests MUST be discarded.

   If there are multiple authenticated DHCPv6 servers, the client
   selects one DHCPv6 server for the following network parameters
   configuration.  The client can also choose other implementation
   method depending on the client's local policy if the defined protocol
   can also run normally.  For example, the client can try multiple
   transactions (each encrypted with different public key) at the "same"
   time.  If there are no authenticated DHCPv6 servers or existing
   servers failed authentication, the client should retry a number of
   times.  In this way, it is difficult for the rogue server to beat out
   a busy "real" server.  And then the client takes some alternative
   action depending on its local policy, such as attempting to use an
   unsecured DHCPv6 server.  The client conducts the server discovery
   process as per section 18.1.5 of [RFC3315] to avoid the packet storm.

   Once the server has been authenticated, the DHCPv6 client sends the
   Encrypted-Query message to the DHCPv6 server.  The Encrypted-Query
   message contains the Encrypted-message option, which MUST be
   constructed as explained in Section 10.1.4, and Server Identifier
   option.  The Encrypted-message option contains the DHCPv6 message
   that is encrypted using the selected server's public key.  The Server
   Identifier option is externally visible to avoid decryption cost by
   those unselected servers.

   For the encrypted DHCPv6 message sent from the DHCPv6 client to the
   DHCPv6 server, the first DHCPv6 message, such as Solicit message,
   MUST contain the Certificate option, Signature option and Timestamp
   option for client authentication.  The Certificate option MUST be
   constructed as explained in Section 10.1.1.  In addition, one and
   only one Signature option MUST be contained, which MUST be
   constructed as explained in Section 10.1.2.  One and only one
   Timestamp option SHOULD be contained, which MUST be constructed as
   explained in Section 10.1.3.  The Timestamp field SHOULD be set to
   the current time, according to sender's real time clock.

   If the client has multiple certificates with different public/private
   key pairs, the message transaction-id is used as the identifier of
   the client's private key for decryption.  In addition, the subsequent




Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   encrypted DHCPv6 message can contain the Timestamp option to defend
   against replay attack.

   For the received Encrypted-Response message, the client extracts the
   Encrypted-message option and decrypts it using its private key to
   obtain the original DHCPv6 message.  Then it handles the message as
   per [RFC3315].  If the decrypted DHCPv6 message contains the
   Timestamp option, the DHCPv6 client checks the timestamp according to
   the rule defined in Section 9.1.  The DHCPv6 message, which fails the
   timestamp check, MUST be discarded.  If the client fails to get the
   proper parameters from the chosen server, it sends the Encrypted-
   Query message to another authenticated server for parameters
   configuration until the client obtains the proper parameters.

   When the client receives a Reply message with an error status code,
   the error status code indicates the failure reason on the server
   side.  According to the received status code, the client MAY take
   follow-up action:

   o  Upon receiving an AlgorithmNotSupported error status code, the
      client SHOULD resend the message protected with one of the
      mandatory algorithms.

   o  Upon receiving an AuthenticationFail error status code, the client
      is not able to build up the secure communication with the server.
      However, there may be other DHCPv6 servers available that
      successfully complete authentication.  The client MAY use the
      AuthenticationFail as a hint and switch to other certificate if it
      has another one; but otherwise treat the message containing the
      status code as if it had not been received.  But it SHOULD NOT
      retry with the same certificate.  However, if the client decides
      to retransmit using the same certificate after receiving
      AuthenticationFail, it MUST NOT retransmit immediately and MUST
      follow normal retransmission routines defined in [RFC3315].

   o  Upon receiving a DecryptionFail error status code, the client MAY
      resend the message following normal retransmission routines
      defined in [RFC3315].

   o  Upon receiving a TimestampFail error status code, the client MAY
      resend the message with an adjusted timestamp according to the
      returned clock from the DHCPv6 server.  The client SHOULD NOT
      change its own clock, but only compute an offset for the
      communication session.

   o  Upon receiving a SignatureFail error status code, the client MAY
      resend the message following normal retransmission routines
      defined in [RFC3315].



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


7.  DHCPv6 Server Behavior

   For the secure DHCPv6 server, a certificate is needed for server
   authentication.  The server is pre-configured with a certificate and
   its corresponding private key.  If the server is pre-configured with
   public key but not with a certificate, it can generate the self-
   signed certificate for server authentication.

   When the DHCPv6 server receives the Information-request message and
   the contained Option Request option identifies the request is for the
   server certificate information, it replies with a Reply message to
   the client.  The Reply message MUST contain the requested Certificate
   option, which MUST be constructed as explained in Section 10.1.1, and
   Server Identifier option.  In addition, the Reply message MUST
   contain one and only one Signature option, which MUST be constructed
   as explained in Section 10.1.2.  Besides, the Reply message SHOULD
   contain one and only one Timestamp option, which MUST be constructed
   as explained in Section 10.1.3.  The Timestamp field SHOULD be set to
   the current time, according to server's real time clock.

   Upon the receipt of Encrypted-Query message, the server checks the
   Server Identifier option.  It decrypts the Encrypted-message option
   using its private key if it is the target server.  The DHCPv6 server
   drops the message that is not for it, thus not paying cost to decrypt
   messages not for it.

   If the decrypted message is a Solicit/Information-request message,
   the secure DHCPv6 server discards the received message that meets any
   of the following conditions:

   o  the Signature option is missing,

   o  multiple Signature options are present,

   o  the Certificate option is missing.

   In such failure, the server replies with an UnspecFail (value 1,
   [RFC3315]) error status code.

   The server SHOULD first check the support of the hash function,
   signature algorithm, encryption algorithm that the client used.  If
   the check fails, the server SHOULD reply with an
   AlgorithmNotSupported error status code, defined in Section 10.3,
   back to the client.  If all the algorithms are supported, the server
   then checks the authority of this client.

   The server validates the client's public key through the local pre-
   configured trusted public keys list.  A public key that finds a match



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   in the local trust public keys list is treated as verified.  The
   message that fails public key validation MUST be dropped.  In such
   failure, the DHCPv6 server replies with an AuthenticationFail error
   status code, defined in Section 10.3, back to the client.  At this
   point, the server has either recognized the authentication of the
   client, or decided to drop the message.

   If the decrypted message contains the Timestamp option, the server
   checks the timestamp according to the rule defined in Section 9.1.
   If the timestamp check fails, a TimestampFail error status code,
   defined in Section 10.3, should be sent back to the client.
   Depending on server's local policy, the message without a Timestamp
   option MAY be acceptable or rejected.  If the server rejects such a
   message, a TimestampFail error status code should be sent back to the
   client.  The Reply message that carries the TimestampFail error
   status code carries a Timestamp option, which indicates the server's
   clock for the client to use.

   If the server does not send the Timestamp option, the client ignores
   the timestamp check and verifies the signature.  If there is a
   timestamp option, the server MUST now authenticate the client by
   verifying the signature and checking timestamp (see details in
   Section 9.1).  The order of two procedures is left as an
   implementation decision.  It is RECOMMENDED to check timestamp first,
   because signature verification is much more computationally
   expensive.  Depending on server's local policy, the message without a
   Timestamp option MAY be acceptable or rejected.  If the server
   rejects such a message, a TimestampFail error status code, defined in
   Section 10.3, should be sent back to the client.  The reply message
   that carries the TimestampFail error status code SHOULD carry a
   Timestamp option, which indicates the server's clock for the client
   to use.

   The Signature field verification MUST show that the signature has
   been calculated as specified in Section 10.1.2.  Only the clients
   that get through both the signature verification and timestamp check
   (if there is a Timestamp option) are accepted as authenticated
   clients and continue to be handled their message as defined in
   [RFC3315].  Clients that do not pass the above tests MUST be treated
   as unauthenticated clients.  The DHCPv6 server SHOULD reply a
   SignatureFail error status code, defined in Section 10.3, for the
   signature verification failure; or a TimestampFail error status code,
   defined in Section 10.3, for the timestamp check failure, back to the
   client.

   Once the client has been authenticated, the DHCPv6 server sends the
   Encrypted-response message to the DHCPv6 client.  The Encrypted-
   response message contains the Encrypted-message option, which MUST be



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   constructed as explained in Section 10.1.4.  The Encrypted-message
   option contains the encrypted DHCPv6 message that is encrypted using
   the authenticated client's public key.  To provide the replay
   protection, the Timestamp option can be contained in the encrypted
   DHCPv6 message.

8.  Relay Agent Behavior

   When a DHCPv6 relay agent receives an Encrypted-query or Encrypted-
   response message, it may not recognize this message.  The unknown
   messages MUST be forwarded as described in [RFC7283].

   When a DHCPv6 relay agent recognizes the Encrypted-query and
   Encrypted-response messages, it forwards the message according to
   section 20 of [RFC3315].  There is nothing more the relay agents have
   to do, it neither needs to verify the messages from client or server,
   nor add any secure DHCPv6 options.  Actually, by definition in this
   document, relay agents MUST NOT add any secure DHCPv6 options.

   Relay-forward and Relay-reply messages MUST NOT contain any
   additional Certificate option or Timestamp option, aside from those
   present in the innermost encapsulated messages from the client or
   server.

   Relay agent is RECOMMENDED to cache server announcements to form the
   list of the available DHCPv6 server certs.  If the relay agent
   receives the Information-request message, then it replies with a list
   of server certs available locally.  In this way, the client can be
   confident of a quick response, and therefore treat the lack of a
   quick response as an indication that no authenticated DHCP servers
   exist.

9.  Processing Rules

9.1.  Timestamp Check

   In order to check the Timestamp option, defined in Section 10.1.3,
   recipients SHOULD be configured with an allowed timestamp Delta
   value, a "fuzz factor" for comparisons, and an allowed clock drift
   parameter.  The recommended default value for the allowed Delta is
   300 seconds (5 minutes); for fuzz factor 1 second; and for clock
   drift, 0.01 second.

   Note: the Timestamp mechanism is based on the assumption that
   communication peers have roughly synchronized clocks, within certain
   allowed clock drift.  So, an accurate clock is not necessary.  If one
   has a clock too far from the current time, the timestamp mechanism
   would not work.



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   To facilitate timestamp checking, each recipient SHOULD store the
   following information for each sender, from which at least one
   accepted secure DHCPv6 message is successfully verified (for
   timestamp check and signature verification):

   o  The receive time of the last received and accepted DHCPv6 message.
      This is called RDlast.

   o  The timestamp in the last received and accepted DHCPv6 message.
      This is called TSlast.

   A verified (for timestamp check and signature verification) secure
   DHCPv6 message initiates the update of the above variables in the
   recipient's record.

   Recipients MUST check the Timestamp field as follows:

   o  When a message is received from a new peer (i.e., one that is not
      stored in the cache), the received timestamp, TSnew, is checked,
      and the message is accepted if the timestamp is recent enough to
      the reception time of the packet, RDnew:

         -Delta < (RDnew - TSnew) < +Delta

      After the signature verification also succeeds, the RDnew and
      TSnew values SHOULD be stored in the cache as RDlast and TSlast.

   o  When a message is received from a known peer (i.e., one that
      already has an entry in the cache), the timestamp is checked
      against the previously received Secure DHCPv6 message:

         TSnew + fuzz > TSlast + (RDnew - RDlast) x (1 - drift) - fuzz

      If this inequality does not hold or RDnew < RDlast, the recipient
      SHOULD silently discard the message.  If, on the other hand, the
      inequality holds, the recipient SHOULD process the message.

      Moreover, if the above inequality holds and TSnew > TSlast, the
      recipient SHOULD update RDlast and TSlast after the signature
      verification also successes.  Otherwise, the recipient MUST NOT
      update RDlast or TSlast.

   An implementation MAY use some mechanism such as a timestamp cache to
   strengthen resistance to replay attacks.  When there is a very large
   number of nodes on the same link, or when a cache filling attack is
   in progress, it is possible that the cache holding the most recent
   timestamp per sender will become full.  In this case, the node MUST
   remove some entries from the cache or refuse some new requested



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   entries.  The specific policy as to which entries are preferred over
   others is left as an implementation decision.

   An implementation MAY statefully record the latest timestamps from
   senders.  In such implementation, the timestamps MUST be strictly
   monotonously increasing.  This is reasonable given that DHCPv6
   messages are rarely misordered.

10.  Extensions for Secure DHCPv6

   This section describes the extensions to DHCPv6.  Four new DHCPv6
   options, two new DHCPv6 messages and five new status codes are
   defined.

10.1.  New DHCPv6 Options

10.1.1.  Certificate Option

   The Certificate option carries the certificate of the client/server.
   The format of the Certificate option is described as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      OPTION_CERTIFICATE       |         option-len            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     EA-id     |                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               .
   .                  Certificate (variable length)                .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   option-code    OPTION_CERTIFICATE (TBA1).

   option-len     1 + Length of certificate in octets.

   EA-id          Encryption Algorithm id. The encryption algorithm
                  is used for the encrypted DHCPv6 configuration
                  process. This design is adopted in order to provide
                  encryption algorithm agility. The value is from the
                  Encryption Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 registry in
                  IANA. A registry of the initial assigned values
                  is defined in Section 12.

   Certificate    A variable-length field containing certificate. The
                  encoding of certificate and certificate data MUST
                  be in format as defined in Section 3.6, [RFC7296].
                  The support of X.509 certificate is mandatory.



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


10.1.2.  Signature option

   The Signature option allows a signature that is signed by the private
   key to be attached to a DHCPv6 message.  The Signature option could
   be in any place within the DHCPv6 message while it is logically
   created after the entire DHCPv6 header and options.  It protects the
   entire DHCPv6 header and options, including itself.  The format of
   the Signature option is described as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     OPTION_SIGNATURE          |        option-len             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     HA-id     |     SA-id     |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   |                                                               |
   .                    Signature (variable length)                .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   option-code    OPTION_SIGNATURE (TBA2).

   option-len     2 + Length of Signature field in octets.

   HA-id          Hash Algorithm id. The hash algorithm is used for
                  computing the signature result. This design is
                  adopted in order to provide hash algorithm agility.
                  The value is from the Hash Algorithm for Secure
                  DHCPv6 registry in IANA. The support of SHA-256 is
                  mandatory. A registry of the initial assigned values
                  is defined in Section 12.

   SA-id          Signature Algorithm id. The signature algorithm is
                  used for computing the signature result. This
                  design is adopted in order to provide signature
                  algorithm agility. The value is from the Signature
                  Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 registry in IANA. The
                  support of RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 is mandatory. A
                  registry of the initial assigned values is defined
                  in Section 12.

   Signature      A variable-length field containing a digital
                  signature. The signature value is computed with
                  the hash algorithm and the signature algorithm,
                  as described in HA-id and SA-id. The signature
                  constructed by using the sender's private key
                  protects the following sequence of octets:



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


                  1. The DHCPv6 message header.

                  2. All DHCPv6 options including the Signature
                  option (fill the Signature field with zeroes)
                  except for the Authentication Option.

                  The Signature field MUST be padded, with all 0, to
                  the next octet boundary if its size is not a
                  multiple of 8 bits. The padding length depends on
                  the signature algorithm, which is indicated in the
                  SA-id field.

   Note: If Secure DHCPv6 is used, the DHCPv6 message is encrypted in a
   way that the authentication mechanism defined in RFC3315 does not
   understand.  So the Authentication option SHOULD NOT be used if
   Secure DHCPv6 is applied.

10.1.3.  Timestamp Option

   The Timestamp option carries the current time on the sender.  It adds
   the anti-replay protection to the DHCPv6 messages.  It is optional.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     OPTION_TIMESTAMP          |        option-len             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                     Timestamp (64-bit)                        |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   option-code    OPTION_TIMESTAMP (TBA3).

   option-len     8, in octets.

   Timestamp      The current time of day (SeND-format timestamp
                  in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). It can reduce
                  the danger of replay attacks. The timestamp data MUST
                  be in format as defined in Section 5.3.1, [RFC3971].

10.1.4.  Encrypted-message Option

   The Encrypted-message option carries the encrypted DHCPv6 message
   with the recipient's public key.

   The format of the Encrypted-message option is:



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          option-code          |           option-len          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                  encrypted DHCPv6 message                     .
     .                       (variable)                              .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 1: Encrypted-message Option Format

   option-code  OPTION_ENCRYPTED_MSG (TBA4).

   option-len  Length of the encrypted DHCPv6 message.

   encrypted DHCPv6 message  A variable length field containing the
      encrypted DHCPv6 message sent by the client or the server.  In
      Encrypted-Query message, it contains encrypted DHCPv6 message sent
      by a client.  In Encrypted-response message, it contains encrypted
      DHCPv6 message sent by a server.

10.2.  New DHCPv6 Messages

   Two new DHCPv6 messages are defined to achieve the DHCPv6 encryption:
   Encrypted-Query and Encrypted-Response.  Both the DHCPv6 messages
   defined in this document share the following format:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    msg-type   |               transaction-id                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                             options                           .
     .                           (variable)                          .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 2: The format of Encrypted-Query and Encrypted-Response
                                 Messages

   msg-type        Identifier of the message type.  It can be either
                   Encrypted-Query (TBA5) or DHCPv6-Response (TBA6).

   transaction-id  The transaction ID for this message exchange.




Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   options         The Encrypted-Query message MUST contain the Server
                   Identifier option and Encrypted-message option.  The
                   Encrypted-Response message MUST contain the
                   Encrypted-message option.

10.3.  Status Codes

   The following new status codes, see Section 5.4 of [RFC3315] are
   defined.

   o  AlgorithmNotSupported (TBD7): indicates that the DHCPv6 server
      does not support algorithms that sender used.

   o  AuthenticationFail (TBD8): indicates that the message from the
      DHCPv6 client fails authentication check.

   o  TimestampFail (TBD9): indicates the message from DHCPv6 client
      fails the timestamp check.

   o  SignatureFail (TBD10): indicates the message from DHCPv6 client
      fails the signature check.

   o  DecryptionFail (TBD11): indicates the message from DHCPv6 client
      fails the DHCPv6 message decryption.

11.  Security Considerations

   This document provides the authentication and encryption mechanisms
   for DHCPv6.

   [RFC6273] has analyzed possible threats to the hash algorithms used
   in SEND.  Since Secure DHCPv6 defined in this document uses the same
   hash algorithms in similar way to SEND, analysis results could be
   applied as well: current attacks on hash functions do not constitute
   any practical threat to the digital signatures used in the signature
   algorithm in Secure DHCPv6.

   A server, whose local policy accepts messages without a Timestamp
   option, may have to face the risk of replay attacks.

   A window of vulnerability for replay attacks exists until the
   timestamp expires.  Secure DHCPv6 nodes are protected against replay
   attacks as long as they cache the state created by the message
   containing the timestamp.  The cached state allows the node to
   protect itself against replayed messages.  However, once the node
   flushes the state for whatever reason, an attacker can re-create the
   state by replaying an old message while the timestamp is still valid.
   In addition, the effectiveness of timestamps is largely dependent



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   upon the accuracy of synchronization between communicating nodes.
   However, how the two communicating nodes can be synchronized is out
   of scope of this work.

   Attacks against time synchronization protocols such as NTP [RFC5905]
   may cause Secure DHCPv6 nodes to have an incorrect timestamp value.
   This can be used to launch replay attacks, even outside the normal
   window of vulnerability.  To protect against these attacks, it is
   recommended that Secure DHCPv6 nodes keep independently maintained
   clocks or apply suitable security measures for the time
   synchronization protocols.

   There are some mandatory algorithm for encryption algorithm in this
   document.  It may be at some point that the mandatory algorithm is no
   longer safe to use.

   If the client tries more than one cert for client authentication, the
   server can easily get a client that implements this to enumerate its
   entire cert list and probably learn a lot about a client that way.

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines four new DHCPv6 [RFC3315] options.  The IANA is
   requested to assign values for these four options from the DHCPv6
   Option Codes table of the DHCPv6 Parameters registry maintained in
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters.  The four options
   are:

      The Certificate Option (TBA1), described in Section 10.1.1.

      The Signature Option (TBA2), described in Section 10.1.2.

      The Timestamp Option (TBA3),described in Section 10.1.3.

      The Encrypted-message Option (TBA4), described in Section 10.1.4.

   The IANA is also requested to assign value for these two messages
   from the DHCPv6 Message Types table of the DHCPv6 Parameters registry
   maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters.  The
   two messages are:

      The Encrypted-Query Message (TBA5), described in Section 10.2.

      The Encrypted-Response Message (TBA6), described in Section 10.2.

   The IANA is also requested to add three new registry tables to the
   DHCPv6 Parameters registry maintained in
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters.  The three tables



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   are the Hash Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 table, the Signature
   Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 table and the Encryption Algorithm for
   Secure DHCPv6 table.

   Initial values for these registries are given below.  Future
   assignments are to be made through Standards Action [RFC5226].
   Assignments for each registry consist of a name, a value and a RFC
   number where the registry is defined.

   Hash Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6.  The values in this table are 8-bit
   unsigned integers.  The following initial values are assigned for
   Hash Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 in this document:

             Name        |  Value  |  RFCs
      -------------------+---------+--------------
            SHA-256      |   0x01  | this document
            SHA-512      |   0x02  | this document

   Signature Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6.  The values in this table are
   8-bit unsigned integers.  The following initial values are assigned
   for Signature Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 in this document:

             Name        |  Value  |  RFCs
      -------------------+---------+--------------
       RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 |   0x01  | this document

   Encryption algorithm for Secure DHCPv6.  The values in this table are
   8-bit unsigned integers.  The following initial values are assigned
   for encryption algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 in this document:

             Name        |  Value  |  RFCs
      -------------------+---------+--------------
            RSA         |    0    | this document

   IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCPv6 Status Codes,
   defined in Section 10.3, in the DHCPv6 Parameters registry maintained
   in http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters:

         Code  |           Name        |   Reference
      ---------+-----------------------+--------------
         TBD7  | AlgorithmNotSupported | this document
         TBD8  |   AuthenticationFail  | this document
         TBD9  |     TimestampFail     | this document
         TBD10 |     SignatureFail     | this document
         TBD11 |    DecryptionFail     | this document






Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


13.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Tomek Mrugalski, Bernie Volz,
   Jianping Wu, Randy Bush, Yiu Lee, Sean Shen, Ralph Droms, Jari Arkko,
   Sean Turner, Stephen Farrell, Christian Huitema, Stephen Kent, Thomas
   Huth, David Schumacher, Francis Dupont, Gang Chen, Suresh Krishnan,
   Fred Templin, Robert Elz, Nico Williams, Erik Kline, Alan DeKok,
   Bernard Aboba, Sam Hartman, Qi Sun, Zilong Liu and other members of
   the IETF DHC working group for their valuable comments.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].

14.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-12: Add the Signature option and timestamp
   option during server/client authentication process.  Add the hash
   function and signature algorithm.  Add the requirement: The
   Information-request message cannot contain any other options except
   ORO option.  Modify the use of "SHOULD"; Delete the reference of
   RFC5280 and modify the method of client/server cert verification; Add
   the relay agent cache function for the quick response when there is
   no authenticated server.  2016-4-24.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-11: Delete the Signature option, because the
   encrypted DHCPv6 message and the Information-request message (only
   contain the Certificate option) don't need the Signature option for
   message integrity check; Rewrite the "Applicability" section; Add the
   encryption algorithm negotiation process; To support the encryption
   algorithm negotiation, the Certificate option contains the EA-
   id(encryption algorithm identifier) field; Reserve the Timestamp
   option to defend against the replay attacks for encrypted DHCPv6
   configuration process; Modify the client behavior when there is no
   authenticated DHCPv6 server; Add the DecryptionFail error code.
   2016-3-9.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-10: merge DHCPv6 authentication and DHCPv6
   encryption.  The public key option is removed, because the device can
   generate the self-signed certificate if it is pre-configured the
   public key not the certificate. 2015-12-10.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-09: change some texts about the deployment
   part.2015-12-10.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08: clarified what the client and the server
   should do if it receives a message using unsupported algorithm;
   refined the error code treatment regarding to AuthenticationFail and
   TimestampFail; added consideration on how to reduce the DoS attack
   when using TOFU; other general editorial cleanups. 2015-06-10.



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-07: removed the deployment consideration
   section; instead, described more straightforward use cases with TOFU
   in the overview section, and clarified how the public keys would be
   stored at the recipient when TOFU is used.  The overview section also
   clarified the integration of PKI or other similar infrastructure is
   an open issue.  2015-03-23.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-06: remove the limitation that only clients
   use PKI- certificates and only servers use public keys.  The new text
   would allow clients use public keys and servers use PKI-certificates.
   2015-02-18.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-05: addressed comments from mail list that
   responsed to the second WGLC. 2014-12-08.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04: addressed comments from mail list.
   Making timestamp an independent and optional option.  Reduce the
   serverside authentication to base on only client's certificate.
   Reduce the clientside authentication to only Leaf of Faith base on
   server's public key. 2014-09-26.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-03: addressed comments from WGLC.  Added a
   new section "Deployment Consideration".  Corrected the Public Key
   Field in the Public Key Option.  Added consideration for large DHCPv6
   message transmission.  Added TimestampFail error code.  Refined the
   retransmission rules on clients. 2014-06-18.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02: addressed comments (applicability
   statement, redesign the error codes and their logic) from IETF89 DHC
   WG meeting and volunteer reviewers. 2014-04-14.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-01: addressed comments from IETF88 DHC WG
   meeting.  Moved Dacheng Zhang from acknowledgement to be co-author.
   2014-02-14.

   draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-00: adopted by DHC WG. 2013-11-19.

   draft-jiang-dhc-sedhcpv6-02: removed protection between relay agent
   and server due to complexity, following the comments from Ted Lemon,
   Bernie Volz. 2013-10-16.

   draft-jiang-dhc-sedhcpv6-01: update according to review comments from
   Ted Lemon, Bernie Volz, Ralph Droms.  Separated Public Key/
   Certificate option into two options.  Refined many detailed
   processes.  2013-10-08.

   draft-jiang-dhc-sedhcpv6-00: original version, this draft is a
   replacement of draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6, which reached IESG and



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   dead because of consideration regarding to CGA.  The authors followed
   the suggestion from IESG making a general public key based mechanism.
   2013-06-29.

15.  Open Issues [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   this protocol changes DHCPv6 message exchanges quite substantially:
   previously, the client first sends a Solicit message, gets possibly
   multiple Advertise messages, chooses the server (= sender of one of
   the Advertises) that would be best for the client, and then sends a
   Request to that chosen server.  Now the server selection is done at
   the key exchange phase (the initial Information-request and Reply
   exchange), and the Solicit can be sent only to a single server.  If
   the client doesn't like the Advertise it could restart the whole
   process, but it will be more expensive, and there's no guarantee that
   other servers can provide a better Advertise.

   One might argue that it's okay as "secure DHCPv6" is an "optional"
   extension.  But, with keeping in mind that the current IETF trend is
   to make everything privacy-aware (often by making everything
   encrypted), I'd personally say we should consider it to be the
   standard mode of DHCPv6 operation even if users can still disable it.
   From this point of view, I think we should either

   o  A. make the server selection behavior more compatible with the
      pre-encryption protocol, or

   o  B. accept we give up the previous server selection feature for
      privacy (after careful assessment of its effect and with clear wg
      consensus), and explicitly note that.  we might even have to
      reflect that in rfc3315bis.

16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.







Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
              "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC7283]  Cui, Y., Sun, Q., and T. Lemon, "Handling Unknown DHCPv6
              Messages", RFC 7283, DOI 10.17487/RFC7283, July 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7283>.

   [RFC7296]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
              Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
              (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.

16.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.

   [RFC4270]  Hoffman, P. and B. Schneier, "Attacks on Cryptographic
              Hashes in Internet Protocols", RFC 4270,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4270, November 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4270>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.






Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   [RFC6273]  Kukec, A., Krishnan, S., and S. Jiang, "The Secure
              Neighbor Discovery (SEND) Hash Threat Analysis", RFC 6273,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6273, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6273>.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.

   [RSA]      RSA Laboratories, "RSA Encryption Standard, Version 2.1,
              PKCS 1", November 2002.

Authors' Addresses

   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095
   CN

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com


   Lishan Li
   Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-15201441862
   Email: lilishan48@gmail.com


   Yong Cui
   Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6260-3059
   Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn


   Tatuya Jinmei
   Infoblox Inc.
   3111 Coronado Drive
   Santa Clara, CA
   US

   Email: jinmei@wide.ad.jp



Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                  SeDHCPv6                      April 2016


   Ted Lemon
   Nominum, Inc.
   2000 Seaport Blvd
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Phone: +1-650-381-6000
   Email: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com


   Dacheng Zhang
   Beijing
   CN

   Email: dacheng.zhang@gmail.com




































Jiang, et al.           Expires October 26, 2016               [Page 28]


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