[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 4306
INTERNET-DRAFT Charlie Kaufman, Editor
draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt
Obsoletes: 2407, 2408, 2409 May 29, 2004
Expires: November 2004
Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This document is a submission by the IPSEC Working Group of the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted
to the ipsec@lists.tislabs.com mailing list.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This Internet-Draft expires in November 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes version 2 of the Internet Key Exchange (IKE)
protocol. IKE is a component of IPsec used for performing mutual
authentication and establishing and maintaining security
associations.
This version of the IKE specification combines the contents of what
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 1]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
were previously separate documents, including ISAKMP (RFC 2408), IKE
(RFC 2409), the Internet DOI (RFC 2407), NAT Traversal, Legacy
authentication, and remote address acquisition.
Version 2 of IKE does not interoperate with version 1, but it has
enough of the header format in common that both versions can
unambiguously run over the same UDP port.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction...............................................3
1.1 Usage Scenarios..........................................5
1.2 The Initial Exchange.....................................7
1.3 The CREATE_CHILD_SA Exchange.............................9
1.4 The INFORMATIONAL Exchange..............................10
1.5 Informational Messages outside of an IKE_SA.............12
2 IKE Protocol Details and Variations.......................12
2.1 Use of Retransmission Timers............................12
2.2 Use of Sequence Numbers for Message ID..................13
2.3 Window Size for overlapping requests....................13
2.4 State Synchronization and Connection Timeouts...........14
2.5 Version Numbers and Forward Compatibility...............16
2.6 Cookies.................................................17
2.7 Cryptographic Algorithm Negotiation.....................19
2.8 Rekeying................................................20
2.9 Traffic Selector Negotiation............................23
2.10 Nonces.................................................25
2.11 Address and Port Agility...............................25
2.12 Reuse of Diffie-Hellman Exponentials...................25
2.13 Generating Keying Material.............................26
2.14 Generating Keying Material for the IKE_SA..............27
2.15 Authentication of the IKE_SA...........................28
2.16 Extended Authentication Protocol Methods...............29
2.17 Generating Keying Material for CHILD_SAs...............31
2.18 Rekeying IKE_SAs using a CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange......32
2.19 Requesting an internal address on a remote network.....32
2.20 Requesting a Peer's Version............................34
2.21 Error Handling.........................................34
2.22 IPComp.................................................35
2.23 NAT Traversal..........................................36
2.24 ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification).................39
3 Header and Payload Formats................................39
3.1 The IKE Header..........................................39
3.2 Generic Payload Header..................................42
3.3 Security Association Payload............................44
3.4 Key Exchange Payload....................................54
3.5 Identification Payloads.................................55
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 2]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
3.6 Certificate Payload.....................................57
3.7 Certificate Request Payload.............................59
3.8 Authentication Payload..................................61
3.9 Nonce Payload...........................................62
3.10 Notify Payload.........................................62
3.11 Delete Payload.........................................70
3.12 Vendor ID Payload......................................71
3.13 Traffic Selector Payload...............................72
3.14 Encrypted Payload......................................75
3.15 Configuration Payload..................................76
3.16 Extended Authentication Protocol (EAP) Payload.........81
4 Conformance Requirements..................................83
5 Security Considerations...................................85
6 IANA Considerations.......................................87
7 Acknowledgements..........................................88
8 References................................................88
8.1 Normative References....................................88
8.2 Informative References..................................89
Appendix A: Summary of Changes from IKEv1...................93
Appendix B: Diffie-Hellman Groups...........................95
Change History (To be removed from RFC).....................97
Editor's Address...........................................105
Full Copyright Statement...................................105
Intellectual Property Statement............................105
Requirements Terminology
Keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and
"MAY" that appear in this document are to be interpreted as described
in [Bra97].
The term "Expert Review" is to be interpreted as defined in
[RFC2434].
1 Introduction
IP Security (IPsec) provides confidentiality, data integrity, access
control, and data source authentication to IP datagrams. These
services are provided by maintaining shared state between the source
and the sink of an IP datagram. This state defines, among other
things, the specific services provided to the datagram, which
cryptographic algorithms will be used to provide the services, and
the keys used as input to the cryptographic algorithms.
Establishing this shared state in a manual fashion does not scale
well. Therefore a protocol to establish this state dynamically is
needed. This memo describes such a protocol-- the Internet Key
Exchange (IKE). This is version 2 of IKE. Version 1 of IKE was
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 3]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
defined in RFCs 2407, 2408, and 2409. This single document is
intended to replace all three of those RFCs.
IKE performs mutual authentication between two parties and
establishes an IKE security association that includes shared secret
information that can be used to efficiently establish SAs for ESP
[RFC2406] and/or AH [RFC2402] and a set of cryptographic algorithms
to be used by the SAs to protect the traffic that they carry. In
this document, the term "suite" or "cryptographic suite" refers to a
complete set of algorithms used to protect an SA. An initiator
proposes one or more suites by listing supported algorithms that can
be combined into suites in a mix and match fashion. IKE can also
negotiate use of IPComp [IPCOMP] in connection with an ESP and/or AH
SA. We call the IKE SA an "IKE_SA". The SAs for ESP and/or AH that
get set up through that IKE_SA we call "CHILD_SA"s.
All IKE communications consist of pairs of messages: a request and a
response. The pair is called an "exchange". We call the first
messages establishing an IKE_SA IKE_SA_INIT and IKE_AUTH exchanges
and subsequent IKE exchanges CREATE_CHILD_SA or INFORMATIONAL
exchanges. In the common case, there is a single IKE_SA_INIT exchange
and a single IKE_AUTH exchange (a total of four messages) to
establish the IKE_SA and the first CHILD_SA. In exceptional cases,
there may be more than one of each of these exchanges. In all cases,
all IKE_SA_INIT exchanges MUST complete before any other exchange
type, then all IKE_AUTH exchanges MUST complete, and following that
any number of CREATE_CHILD_SA and INFORMATIONAL exchanges may occur
in any order. In some scenarios, only a single CHILD_SA is needed
between the IPsec endpoints and therefore there would be no
additional exchanges. Subsequent exchanges MAY be used to establish
additional CHILD_SAs between the same authenticated pair of endpoints
and to perform housekeeping functions.
IKE message flow always consists of a request followed by a response.
It is the responsibility of the requester to ensure reliability. If
the response is not received within a timeout interval, the requester
needs to retransmit the request (or abandon the connection).
The first request/response of an IKE session negotiates security
parameters for the IKE_SA, sends nonces, and sends Diffie-Hellman
values. We call the initial exchange IKE_SA_INIT (request and
response).
The second request/response, which we'll call IKE_AUTH transmits
identities, proves knowledge of the secrets corresponding to the two
identities, and sets up an SA for the first (and often only) AH
and/or ESP CHILD_SA.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 4]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
The types of subsequent exchanges are CREATE_CHILD_SA (which creates
a CHILD_SA), and INFORMATIONAL (which deletes an SA, reports error
conditions, or does other housekeeping). Every request requires a
response. An INFORMATIONAL request with no payloads is commonly used
as a check for liveness. These subsequent exchanges cannot be used
until the initial exchanges have completed.
In the description that follows, we assume that no errors occur.
Modifications to the flow should errors occur are described in
section 2.21.
1.1 Usage Scenarios
IKE is expected to be used to negotiate ESP and/or AH SAs in a number
of different scenarios, each with its own special requirements.
1.1.1 Security Gateway to Security Gateway Tunnel
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
! ! IPsec ! !
Protected !Tunnel ! Tunnel !Tunnel ! Protected
Subnet <-->!Endpoint !<---------->!Endpoint !<--> Subnet
! ! ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Security Gateway to Security Gateway Tunnel
In this scenario, neither endpoint of the IP connection implements
IPsec, but network nodes between them protect traffic for part of the
way. Protection is transparent to the endpoints, and depends on
ordinary routing to send packets through the tunnel endpoints for
processing. Each endpoint would announce the set of addresses
"behind" it, and packets would be sent in Tunnel Mode where the inner
IP header would contain the IP addresses of the actual endpoints.
1.1.2 Endpoint to Endpoint Transport
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
! ! IPsec Transport ! !
!Protected! or Tunnel Mode SA !Protected!
!Endpoint !<---------------------------------------->!Endpoint !
! ! ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Endpoint to Endpoint
In this scenario, both endpoints of the IP connection implement
IPsec, as required of hosts in [RFC2401bis]. Transport mode will
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 5]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
commonly be used with no inner IP header. If there is an inner IP
header, the inner addresses will be the same as the outer addresses.
A single pair of addresses will be negotiated for packets to be
protected by this SA. These endpoints MAY implement application layer
access controls based on the IPsec authenticated identities of the
participants. This scenario enables the end-to-end security that has
been a guiding principle for the Internet since [RFC1958], [RFC2775],
and a method of limiting the inherent problems with complexity in
networks noted by [RFC3439]. While this scenario may not be fully
applicable to the IPv4 Internet, it has been deployed successfully in
specific scenarios within intranets using IKEv1. It should be more
broadly enabled during the transition to IPv6 and with the adoption
of IKEv2.
It is possible in this scenario that one or both of the protected
endpoints will be behind a network address translation (NAT) node, in
which case the tunneled packets will have to be UDP encapsulated so
that port numbers in the UDP headers can be used to identify
individual endpoints "behind" the NAT (see section 2.23).
1.1.3 Endpoint to Security Gateway Transport
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
! ! IPsec ! ! Protected
!Protected! Tunnel !Tunnel ! Subnet
!Endpoint !<------------------------>!Endpoint !<--- and/or
! ! ! ! Internet
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Endpoint to Security Gateway Tunnel
In this scenario, a protected endpoint (typically a portable roaming
computer) connects back to its corporate network through an IPsec
protected tunnel. It might use this tunnel only to access information
on the corporate network or it might tunnel all of its traffic back
through the corporate network in order to take advantage of
protection provided by a corporate firewall against Internet based
attacks. In either case, the protected endpoint will want an IP
address associated with the security gateway so that packets returned
to it will go to the security gateway and be tunneled back. This IP
address may be static or may be dynamically allocated by the security
gateway. In support of the latter case, IKEv2 includes a mechanism
for the initiator to request an IP address owned by the security
gateway for use for the duration of its SA.
In this scenario, packets will use tunnel mode. On each packet from
the protected endpoint, the outer IP header will contain the source
IP address associated with its current location (i.e., the address
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 6]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
that will get traffic routed to the endpoint directly) while the
inner IP header will contain the source IP address assigned by the
security gateway (i.e., the address that will get traffic routed to
the security gateway for forwarding to the endpoint). The outer
destination address will always be that of the security gateway,
while the inner destination address will be the ultimate destination
for the packet.
In this scenario, it is possible that the protected endpoint will be
behind a NAT. In that case, the IP address as seen by the security
gateway will not be the same as the IP address sent by the protected
endpoint, and packets will have to be UDP encapsulated in order to be
routed properly.
1.1.4 Other Scenarios
Other scenarios are possible, as are nested combinations of the
above. One notable example combines aspects of 1.1.1 and 1.1.3. A
subnet may make all external accesses through a remote security
gateway using an IPsec tunnel, where the addresses on the subnet are
routed to the security gateway by the rest of the Internet. An
example would be someone's home network being virtually on the
Internet with static IP addresses even though connectivity is
provided by an ISP that assigns a single dynamically assigned IP
address to the user's security gateway (where the static IP addresses
and an IPsec relay is provided by a third party located elsewhere).
1.2 The Initial Exchanges
Communication using IKE always begins with IKE_SA_INIT and IKE_AUTH
exchanges (known in IKEv1 as Phase 1). These initial exchanges
normally consist of four messages, though in some scenarios that
number can grow. All communications using IKE consist of
request/response pairs. We'll describe the base exchange first,
followed by variations. The first pair of messages (IKE_SA_INIT)
negotiate cryptographic algorithms, exchange nonces, and do a Diffie-
Hellman exchange.
The second pair of messages (IKE_AUTH) authenticate the previous
messages, exchange identities and certificates, and establish the
first CHILD_SA. Parts of these messages are encrypted and integrity
protected with keys established through the IKE_SA_INIT exchange, so
the identities are hidden from eavesdroppers and all fields in all
the messages are authenticated.
In the following description, the payloads contained in the message
are indicated by names such as SA. The details of the contents of
each payload are described later. Payloads which may optionally
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 7]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
appear will be shown in brackets, such as [CERTREQ], would indicate
that optionally a certificate request payload can be included.
To simplify the descriptions that follow by allowing the use of
gender specific personal pronouns, the initiator is assumed to be
named "Alice" and the responder "Bob".
The initial exchanges are as follows:
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni -->
HDR contains the SPIs, version numbers, and flags of various sorts.
The SAi1 payload states the cryptographic algorithms the Initiator
supports for the IKE_SA. The KE payload sends the Initiator's
Diffie-Hellman value. Ni is the Initiator's nonce.
<-- HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ]
The Responder chooses a cryptographic suite from the Initiator's
offered choices and expresses that choice in the SAr1 payload,
completes the Diffie-Hellman exchange with the KEr payload, and sends
its nonce in the Nr payload.
At this point in the negotiation each party can generate SKEYSEED,
from which all keys are derived for that IKE_SA. All but the headers
of all the messages that follow are encrypted and integrity
protected. The keys used for the encryption and integrity protection
are derived from SKEYSEED and are known as SK_e (encryption) and SK_a
(authentication, a.k.a. integrity protection). A separate SK_e and
SK_a is computed for each direction. In addition to the keys SK_e
and SK_a derived from the DH value for protection of the IKE_SA,
another quantity SK_d is derived and used for derivation of further
keying material for CHILD_SAs. The notation SK { ... } indicates
that these payloads are encrypted and integrity protected using that
direction's SK_e and SK_a.
HDR, SK {IDi, [CERT,] [CERTREQ,] [IDr,]
AUTH, SAi2, TSi, TSr} -->
The Initiator asserts her identity with the IDi payload, proves
knowledge of the secret corresponding to IDi and integrity protects
the contents of the first message using the AUTH payload (see section
2.15). She might also send her certificate(s) in CERT payload(s) and
a list of her trust anchors in CERTREQ payload(s). If any CERT
payloads are included, the first certificate provided MUST contain
the public key used to verify the AUTH field. The optional payload
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 8]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
IDr enables Alice to specify which of Bob's identities she wants to
talk to. This is useful when Bob is hosting multiple identities at
the same IP address. She begins negotiation of a CHILD_SA using the
SAi2 payload. The final fields (starting with SAi2) are described in
the description of the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange.
<-- HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT,] AUTH,
SAr2, TSi, TSr}
The Responder asserts his identity with the IDr payload, optionally
sends one or more certificates (again with the certificate containing
the public key used to verify AUTH listed first), authenticates his
identity and protects the integrity of the second message with the
AUTH payload, and completes negotiation of a CHILD_SA with the
additional fields described below in the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange.
The recipients of messages 3 and 4 MUST verify that all signatures
and MACs are computed correctly and that the names in the ID payloads
correspond to the keys used to generate the AUTH payload.
1.3 The CREATE_CHILD_SA Exchange
This exchange consists of a single request/response pair, and was
referred to as a phase 2 exchange in IKEv1. It MAY be initiated by
either end of the IKE_SA after the initial exchanges are completed.
All messages following the initial exchange are cryptographically
protected using the cryptographic algorithms and keys negotiated in
the first two messages of the IKE exchange. These subsequent
messages use the syntax of the Encrypted Payload described in section
3.14.
Either endpoint may initiate a CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange, so in this
section the term initiator refers to the endpoint initiating this
exchange. The term "Alice" will always refer to the initiator of the
outer IKE_SA.
A CHILD_SA is created by sending a CREATE_CHILD_SA request. The
CREATE_CHILD_SA request MAY optionally contain a KE payload for an
additional Diffie-Hellman exchange to enable stronger guarantees of
forward secrecy for the CHILD_SA. The keying material for the
CHILD_SA is a function of SK_d established during the establishment
of the IKE_SA, the nonces exchanged during the CREATE_CHILD_SA
exchange, and the Diffie-Hellman value (if KE payloads are included
in the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange).
In the CHILD_SA created as part of the initial exchange, a second KE
payload and nonce MUST NOT be sent. The nonces from the initial
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 9]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
exchange are used in computing the keys for the CHILD_SA.
The CREATE_CHILD_SA request contains:
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SK {[N], SA, Ni, [KEi],
[TSi, TSr]} -->
The initiator sends SA offer(s) in the SA payload, a nonce in the Ni
payload, optionally a Diffie-Hellman value in the KEi payload, and
the proposed traffic selectors in the TSi and TSr payloads. If this
CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange is rekeying an existing SA other than the
IKE_SA, the leading N payload of type REKEY_SA MUST identify the SA
being rekeyed. If this CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange is not rekeying an
existing SA, the N payload MUST be omitted. If the SA offers include
different Diffie-Hellman groups, KEi MUST be an element of the group
the initiator expects the responder to accept. If it guesses wrong,
the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange will fail and it will have to retry with
a different KEi.
The message following the header is encrypted and the message
including the header is integrity protected using the cryptographic
algorithms negotiated for the IKE_SA.
The CREATE_CHILD_SA response contains:
<-- HDR, SK {SA, Nr, [KEr],
[TSi, TSr]}
The responder replies (using the same Message ID to respond) with the
accepted offer in an SA payload, and a Diffie-Hellman value in the
KEr payload if KEi was included in the request and the selected
cryptographic suite includes that group. If the responder chooses a
cryptographic suite with a different group, it MUST reject the
request. The initiator SHOULD repeat the request, but now with a KEi
payload from the group the responder selected.
The traffic selectors for traffic to be sent on that SA are specified
in the TS payloads, which may be a subset of what the initiator of
the CHILD_SA proposed. Traffic selectors are omitted if this
CREATE_CHILD_SA request is being used to change the key of the
IKE_SA.
1.4 The INFORMATIONAL Exchange
At various points during the operation of an IKE_SA, peers may desire
to convey control messages to each other regarding errors or
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 10]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
notifications of certain events. To accomplish this IKE defines an
INFORMATIONAL exchange. INFORMATIONAL exchanges MAY ONLY occur after
the initial exchanges and are cryptographically protected with the
negotiated keys.
Control messages that pertain to an IKE_SA MUST be sent under that
IKE_SA. Control messages that pertain to CHILD_SAs MUST be sent under
the protection of the IKE_SA which generated them (or its successor
if the IKE_SA was replaced for the purpose of rekeying).
Messages in an INFORMATIONAL Exchange contain zero or more
Notification, Delete, and Configuration payloads. The Recipient of an
INFORMATIONAL Exchange request MUST send some response (else the
Sender will assume the message was lost in the network and will
retransmit it). That response MAY be a message with no payloads. The
request message in an INFORMATIONAL Exchange MAY also contain no
payloads. This is the expected way an endpoint can ask the other
endpoint to verify that it is alive.
ESP and AH SAs always exist in pairs, with one SA in each direction.
When an SA is closed, both members of the pair MUST be closed. When
SAs are nested, as when data (and IP headers if in tunnel mode) are
encapsulated first with IPComp, then with ESP, and finally with AH
between the same pair of endpoints, all of the SAs MUST be deleted
together. Each endpoint MUST close its incoming SAs and allow the
other endpoint to close the other SA in each pair. To delete an SA,
an INFORMATIONAL Exchange with one or more delete payloads is sent
listing the SPIs (as they would be expected in the headers of inbound
packets) of the SAs to be deleted. The recipient MUST close the
designated SAs. Normally, the reply in the INFORMATIONAL Exchange
will contain delete payloads for the paired SAs going in the other
direction. There is one exception. If by chance both ends of a set
of SAs independently decide to close them, each may send a delete
payload and the two requests may cross in the network. If a node
receives a delete request for SAs for which it has already issued a
delete request, it MUST delete the outgoing SAs while processing the
request and the incoming SAs while processing the response. In that
case, the responses MUST NOT include delete payloads for the deleted
SAs, since that would result in duplicate deletion and could in
theory delete the wrong SA.
A node SHOULD regard half closed connections as anomalous and audit
their existence should they persist. Note that this specification
nowhere specifies time periods, so it is up to individual endpoints
to decide how long to wait. A node MAY refuse to accept incoming data
on half closed connections but MUST NOT unilaterally close them and
reuse the SPIs. If connection state becomes sufficiently messed up, a
node MAY close the IKE_SA which will implicitly close all SAs
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 11]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
negotiated under it. It can then rebuild the SAs it needs on a clean
base under a new IKE_SA.
The INFORMATIONAL Exchange is defined as:
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SK {[N,] [D,] [CP,] ...} -->
<-- HDR, SK {[N,] [D,] [CP], ...}
The processing of an INFORMATIONAL Exchange is determined by its
component payloads.
1.5 Informational Messages outside of an IKE_SA
If a packet arrives with an unrecognized SPI, it could be because the
receiving node has recently crashed and lost state or because of some
other system malfunction or attack. If the receiving node has an
active IKE_SA to the IP address from whence the packet came, it MAY
send a notification of the wayward packet over that IKE_SA. If it
does not, it MAY send an Informational message without cryptographic
protection to the source IP address and port to alert it to a
possible problem.
2 IKE Protocol Details and Variations
IKE normally listens and sends on UDP port 500, though IKE messages
may also be received on UDP port 4500 with a slightly different
format (see section 2.23). Since UDP is a datagram (unreliable)
protocol, IKE includes in its definition recovery from transmission
errors, including packet loss, packet replay, and packet forgery. IKE
is designed to function so long as (1) at least one of a series of
retransmitted packets reaches its destination before timing out; and
(2) the channel is not so full of forged and replayed packets so as
to exhaust the network or CPU capacities of either endpoint. Even in
the absence of those minimum performance requirements, IKE is
designed to fail cleanly (as though the network were broken).
2.1 Use of Retransmission Timers
All messages in IKE exist in pairs: a request and a response. The
setup of an IKE_SA normally consists of two request/response pairs.
Once the IKE_SA is set up, either end of the security association may
initiate requests at any time, and there can be many requests and
responses "in flight" at any given moment. But each message is
labeled as either a request or a response and for each
request/response pair one end of the security association is the
Initiator and the other is the Responder.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 12]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
For every pair of IKE messages, the Initiator is responsible for
retransmission in the event of a timeout. The Responder MUST never
retransmit a response unless it receives a retransmission of the
request. In that event, the Responder MUST ignore the retransmitted
request except insofar as it triggers a retransmission of the
response. The Initiator MUST remember each request until it receives
the corresponding response. The Responder MUST remember each response
until it receives a request whose sequence number is larger than the
sequence number in the response plus his window size (see section
2.3).
IKE is a reliable protocol, in the sense that the Initiator MUST
retransmit a request until either it receives a corresponding reply
OR it deems the IKE security association to have failed and it
discards all state associated with the IKE_SA and any CHILD_SAs
negotiated using that IKE_SA.
2.2 Use of Sequence Numbers for Message ID
Every IKE message contains a Message ID as part of its fixed header.
This Message ID is used to match up requests and responses, and to
identify retransmissions of messages.
The Message ID is a 32 bit quantity, which is zero for the first IKE
request in each direction. The IKE_SA initial setup messages will
always be numbered 0 and 1. Each endpoint in the IKE Security
Association maintains two "current" Message IDs: the next one to be
used for a request it initiates and the next one it expects to see in
a request from the other end. These counters increment as requests
are generated and received. Responses always contain the same message
ID as the corresponding request. That means that after the initial
exchange, each integer n may appear as the message ID in four
distinct messages: The nth request from the original IKE Initiator,
the corresponding response, the nth request from the original IKE
Responder, and the corresponding response. If the two ends make very
different numbers of requests, the Message IDs in the two directions
can be very different. There is no ambiguity in the messages,
however, because the (I)nitiator and (R)esponse bits in the message
header specify which of the four messages a particular one is.
Note that Message IDs are cryptographically protected and provide
protection against message replays. In the unlikely event that
Message IDs grow too large to fit in 32 bits, the IKE_SA MUST be
closed. Rekeying an IKE_SA resets the sequence numbers.
2.3 Window Size for overlapping requests
In order to maximize IKE throughput, an IKE endpoint MAY issue
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 13]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
multiple requests before getting a response to any of them if the
other endpoint has indicated its ability to handle such requests. For
simplicity, an IKE implementation MAY choose to process requests
strictly in order and/or wait for a response to one request before
issuing another. Certain rules must be followed to assure
interoperability between implementations using different strategies.
After an IKE_SA is set up, either end can initiate one or more
requests. These requests may pass one another over the network. An
IKE endpoint MUST be prepared to accept and process a request while
it has a request outstanding in order to avoid a deadlock in this
situation. An IKE endpoint SHOULD be prepared to accept and process
multiple requests while it has a request outstanding.
An IKE endpoint MUST wait for a response to each of its messages
before sending a subsequent message unless it has received a
SET_WINDOW_SIZE Notify message from its peer informing it that the
peer is prepared to maintain state for multiple outstanding messages
in order to allow greater throughput.
An IKE endpoint MUST NOT exceed the peer's stated window size for
transmitted IKE requests. In other words, if Bob stated his window
size is N, then when Alice needs to make a request X, she MUST wait
until she has received responses to all requests up through request
X-N. An IKE endpoint MUST keep a copy of (or be able to regenerate
exactly) each request it has sent until it receives the corresponding
response. An IKE endpoint MUST keep a copy of (or be able to
regenerate exactly) the number of previous responses equal to its
declared window size in case its response was lost and the Initiator
requests its retransmission by retransmitting the request.
An IKE endpoint supporting a window size greater than one SHOULD be
capable of processing incoming requests out of order to maximize
performance in the event of network failures or packet reordering.
2.4 State Synchronization and Connection Timeouts
An IKE endpoint is allowed to forget all of its state associated with
an IKE_SA and the collection of corresponding CHILD_SAs at any time.
This is the anticipated behavior in the event of an endpoint crash
and restart. It is important when an endpoint either fails or
reinitializes its state that the other endpoint detect those
conditions and not continue to waste network bandwidth by sending
packets over discarded SAs and having them fall into a black hole.
Since IKE is designed to operate in spite of Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks from the network, an endpoint MUST NOT conclude that the
other endpoint has failed based on any routing information (e.g.,
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 14]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
ICMP messages) or IKE messages that arrive without cryptographic
protection (e.g., Notify messages complaining about unknown SPIs). An
endpoint MUST conclude that the other endpoint has failed only when
repeated attempts to contact it have gone unanswered for a timeout
period or when a cryptographically protected INITIAL_CONTACT
notification is received on a different IKE_SA to the same
authenticated identity. An endpoint SHOULD suspect that the other
endpoint has failed based on routing information and initiate a
request to see whether the other endpoint is alive. To check whether
the other side is alive, IKE specifies an empty INFORMATIONAL message
that (like all IKE requests) requires an acknowledgment. If a
cryptographically protected message has been received from the other
side recently, unprotected notifications MAY be ignored.
Implementations MUST limit the rate at which they take actions based
on unprotected messages.
Numbers of retries and lengths of timeouts are not covered in this
specification because they do not affect interoperability. It is
suggested that messages be retransmitted at least a dozen times over
a period of at least several minutes before giving up on an SA, but
different environments may require different rules. If there has only
been outgoing traffic on all of the SAs associated with an IKE_SA, it
is essential to confirm liveness of the other endpoint to avoid black
holes. If no cryptographically protected messages have been received
on an IKE_SA or any of its CHILD_SAs recently, the system needs to
perform a liveness check in order to prevent sending messages to a
dead peer. Receipt of a fresh cryptographically protected message on
an IKE_SA or any of its CHILD_SAs assures liveness of the IKE_SA and
all of its CHILD_SAs. Note that this places requirements on the
failure modes of an IKE endpoint. An implementation MUST NOT continue
sending on any SA if some failure prevents it from receiving on all
of the associated SAs. If CHILD_SAs can fail independently from one
another without the associated IKE_SA being able to send a delete
message, then they MUST be negotiated by separate IKE_SAs.
There is a Denial of Service attack on the Initiator of an IKE_SA
that can be avoided if the Initiator takes the proper care. Since the
first two messages of an SA setup are not cryptographically
protected, an attacker could respond to the Initiator's message
before the genuine Responder and poison the connection setup attempt.
To prevent this, the Initiator MAY be willing to accept multiple
responses to its first message, treat each as potentially legitimate,
respond to it, and then discard all the invalid half open connections
when she receives a valid cryptographically protected response to any
one of her requests. Once a cryptographically valid response is
received, all subsequent responses should be ignored whether or not
they are cryptographically valid.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 15]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Note that with these rules, there is no reason to negotiate and agree
upon an SA lifetime. If IKE presumes the partner is dead, based on
repeated lack of acknowledgment to an IKE message, then the IKE SA
and all CHILD_SAs set up through that IKE_SA are deleted.
An IKE endpoint may at any time delete inactive CHILD_SAs to recover
resources used to hold their state. If an IKE endpoint chooses to do
so, it MUST send Delete payloads to the other end notifying it of the
deletion. It MAY similarly time out the IKE_SA. Closing the IKE_SA
implicitly closes all associated CHILD_SAs. In this case, an IKE
endpoint SHOULD send a Delete payload indicating that it has closed
the IKE_SA.
2.5 Version Numbers and Forward Compatibility
This document describes version 2.0 of IKE, meaning the major version
number is 2 and the minor version number is zero. It is likely that
some implementations will want to support both version 1.0 and
version 2.0, and in the future, other versions.
The major version number should only be incremented if the packet
formats or required actions have changed so dramatically that an
older version node would not be able to interoperate with a newer
version node if it simply ignored the fields it did not understand
and took the actions specified in the older specification. The minor
version number indicates new capabilities, and MUST be ignored by a
node with a smaller minor version number, but used for informational
purposes by the node with the larger minor version number. For
example, it might indicate the ability to process a newly defined
notification message. The node with the larger minor version number
would simply note that its correspondent would not be able to
understand that message and therefore would not send it.
If an endpoint receives a message with a higher major version number,
it MUST drop the message and SHOULD send an unauthenticated
notification message containing the highest version number it
supports. If an endpoint supports major version n, and major version
m, it MUST support all versions between n and m. If it receives a
message with a major version that it supports, it MUST respond with
that version number. In order to prevent two nodes from being tricked
into corresponding with a lower major version number than the maximum
that they both support, IKE has a flag that indicates that the node
is capable of speaking a higher major version number.
Thus the major version number in the IKE header indicates the version
number of the message, not the highest version number that the
transmitter supports. If Alice is capable of speaking versions n,
n+1, and n+2, and Bob is capable of speaking versions n and n+1, then
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 16]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
they will negotiate speaking n+1, where Alice will set the flag
indicating ability to speak a higher version. If they mistakenly
(perhaps through an active attacker sending error messages) negotiate
to version n, then both will notice that the other side can support a
higher version number, and they MUST break the connection and
reconnect using version n+1.
Note that IKEv1 does not follow these rules, because there is no way
in v1 of noting that you are capable of speaking a higher version
number. So an active attacker can trick two v2-capable nodes into
speaking v1. When a v2-capable node negotiates down to v1, it SHOULD
note that fact in its logs.
Also for forward compatibility, all fields marked RESERVED MUST be
set to zero by a version 2.0 implementation and their content MUST be
ignored by a version 2.0 implementation ("Be conservative in what you
send and liberal in what you receive"). In this way, future versions
of the protocol can use those fields in a way that is guaranteed to
be ignored by implementations that do not understand them.
Similarly, payload types that are not defined are reserved for future
use and implementations of version 2.0 MUST skip over those payloads
and ignore their contents.
IKEv2 adds a "critical" flag to each payload header for further
flexibility for forward compatibility. If the critical flag is set
and the payload type is unrecognized, the message MUST be rejected
and the response to the IKE request containing that payload MUST
include a Notify payload UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_PAYLOAD, indicating an
unsupported critical payload was included. If the critical flag is
not set and the payload type is unsupported, that payload MUST be
ignored.
While new payload types may be added in the future and may appear
interleaved with the fields defined in this specification,
implementations MUST send the payloads defined in this specification
in the order shown in the figures in section 2 and implementations
SHOULD reject as invalid a message with those payloads in any other
order.
2.6 Cookies
The term "cookies" originates with Karn and Simpson [RFC2522] in
Photuris, an early proposal for key management with IPsec, and it has
persisted. The ISAKMP fixed message header includes two eight octet
fields titled "cookies", and that syntax is used by both IKEv1 and
IKEv2 though in IKEv2 they are referred to as the IKE SPI and there
is a new separate field in a Notify payload holding the cookie. The
initial two eight octet fields in the header are used as a connection
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 17]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
identifier at the beginning of IKE packets. Each endpoint chooses one
of the two SPIs and SHOULD choose them so as to be unique identifiers
of an IKE_SA. An SPI value of zero is special and indicates that the
remote SPI value is not yet known by the sender.
Unlike ESP and AH where only the recipient's SPI appears in the
header of a message, in IKE the sender's SPI is also sent in every
message. Since the SPI chosen by the original initiator of the IKE_SA
is always sent first, an endpoint with multiple IKE_SAs open that
wants to find the appropriate IKE_SA using the SPI it assigned must
look at the I(nitiator) Flag bit in the header to determine whether
it assigned the first or the second eight octets.
In the first message of an initial IKE exchange, the initiator will
not know the responder's SPI value and will therefore set that field
to zero.
An expected attack against IKE is state and CPU exhaustion, where the
target is flooded with session initiation requests from forged IP
addresses. This attack can be made less effective if an
implementation of a responder uses minimal CPU and commits no state
to an SA until it knows the initiator can receive packets at the
address from which he claims to be sending them. To accomplish this,
a responder SHOULD - when it detects a large number of half-open
IKE_SAs - reject initial IKE messages unless they contain a Notify
payload of type COOKIE. It SHOULD instead send an unprotected IKE
message as a response and include COOKIE Notify payload with the
cookie data to be returned. Initiators who receive such responses
MUST retry the IKE_SA_INIT with a Notify payload of type COOKIE
containing the responder supplied cookie data as the first payload
and all other payloads unchanged. The initial exchange will then be
as follows:
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR(A,0), SAi1, KEi, Ni -->
<-- HDR(A,0), N(COOKIE)
HDR(A,0), N(COOKIE), SAi1, KEi, Ni -->
<-- HDR(A,B), SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ]
HDR(A,B), SK {IDi, [CERT,] [CERTREQ,] [IDr,]
AUTH, SAi2, TSi, TSr} -->
<-- HDR(A,B), SK {IDr, [CERT,] AUTH,
SAr2, TSi, TSr}
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 18]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
The first two messages do not affect any initiator or responder state
except for communicating the cookie. In particular, the message
sequence numbers in the first four messages will all be zero and the
message sequence numbers in the last two messages will be one. 'A' is
the SPI assigned by the initiator, while 'B' is the SPI assigned by
the responder.
An IKE implementation SHOULD implement its responder cookie
generation in such a way as to not require any saved state to
recognize its valid cookie when the second IKE_SA_INIT message
arrives. The exact algorithms and syntax they use to generate
cookies does not affect interoperability and hence is not specified
here. The following is an example of how an endpoint could use
cookies to implement limited DOS protection.
A good way to do this is to set the responder cookie to be:
Cookie = <VersionIDofSecret> | Hash(Ni | IPi | SPIi | <secret>)
where <secret> is a randomly generated secret known only to the
responder and periodically changed and | indicates concatenation.
<VersionIDofSecret> should be changed whenever <secret> is
regenerated. The cookie can be recomputed when the IKE_SA_INIT
arrives the second time and compared to the cookie in the received
message. If it matches, the responder knows that SPIr was generated
since the last change to <secret> and that IPi must be the same as
the source address it saw the first time. Incorporating SPIi into the
calculation assures that if multiple IKE_SAs are being set up in
parallel they will all get different cookies (assuming the initiator
chooses unique SPIi's). Incorporating Ni into the hash assures that
an attacker who sees only message 2 can't successfully forge a
message 3.
If a new value for <secret> is chosen while there are connections in
the process of being initialized, an IKE_SA_INIT might be returned
with other than the current <VersionIDofSecret>. The responder in
that case MAY reject the message by sending another response with a
new cookie or it MAY keep the old value of <secret> around for a
short time and accept cookies computed from either one. The
responder SHOULD NOT accept cookies indefinitely after <secret> is
changed, since that would defeat part of the denial of service
protection. The responder SHOULD change the value of <secret>
frequently, especially if under attack.
2.7 Cryptographic Algorithm Negotiation
The payload type known as "SA" indicates a proposal for a set of
choices of IPsec protocols (IKE, ESP, and/or AH) for the SA as well
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 19]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
as cryptographic algorithms associated with each protocol.
An SA consists of one or more proposals. Each proposal includes one
or more protocols (usually one). Each protocol contains one or more
transforms - each specifying a cryptographic algorithm. Each
transform contains zero or more attributes (attributes are only
needed if the transform identifier does not completely specify the
cryptographic algorithm).
This hierarchical structure was designed to efficiently encode
proposals for cryptographic suites when the number of supported
suites is large because multiple values are acceptable for multiple
transforms. The responder MUST choose a single suite, which MAY be
any subset of the SA proposal following the rules below:
Each proposal contains one or more protocols. If a proposal is
accepted, the SA response MUST contain the same protocols in the
same order as the proposal. The responder MUST accept a single
proposal or reject them all and return an error. (Example: if a
single proposal contains ESP and AH and that proposal is accepted,
both ESP and AH MUST be accepted. If ESP and AH are included in
separate proposals, the responder MUST accept only one of them).
Each IPsec protocol proposal contains one or more transforms. Each
transform contains a transform type. The accepted cryptographic
suite MUST contain exactly one transform of each type included in
the proposal. For example: if an ESP proposal includes transforms
ENCR_3DES, ENCR_AES w/keysize 128, ENCR_AES w/keysize 256,
AUTH_HMAC_MD5, and AUTH_HMAC_SHA, the accepted suite MUST contain
one of the ENCR_ transforms and one of the AUTH_ transforms. Thus
six combinations are acceptable.
Since Alice sends her Diffie-Hellman value in the IKE_SA_INIT, she
must guess at the Diffie-Hellman group that Bob will select from her
list of supported groups. If she guesses wrong, Bob will respond
with a Notify payload of type INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD indicating the
selected group. In this case, Alice MUST retry the IKE_SA_INIT with
the corrected Diffie-Hellman group. Alice MUST again propose her full
set of acceptable cryptographic suites because the rejection message
was unauthenticated and otherwise an active attacker could trick
Alice and Bob into negotiating a weaker suite than a stronger one
that they both prefer.
2.8 Rekeying
IKE, ESP, and AH security associations use secret keys which SHOULD
only be used for a limited amount of time and to protect a limited
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 20]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
amount of data. This limits the lifetime of the entire security
association. When the lifetime of a security association expires the
security association MUST NOT be used. If there is demand, new
security associations MAY be established. Reestablishment of
security associations to take the place of ones which expire is
referred to as "rekeying".
To allow for minimal IPsec implementations, the ability to rekey SAs
without restarting the entire IKE_SA is optional. An implementation
MAY refuse all CREATE_CHILD_SA requests within an IKE_SA. If an SA
has expired or is about to expire and rekeying attempts using the
mechanisms described here fail, an implementation MUST close the
IKE_SA and any associated CHILD_SAs and then MAY start new ones.
Implementations SHOULD support in place rekeying of SAs, since doing
so offers better performance and is likely to reduce the number of
packets lost during the transition.
To rekey a CHILD_SA within an existing IKE_SA, create a new,
equivalent SA (see section 2.17 below), and when the new one is
established, delete the old one. To rekey an IKE_SA, establish a new
equivalent IKE_SA (see section 2.18 below) with the peer to whom the
old IKE_SA is shared using a CREATE_CHILD_SA within the existing
IKE_SA. An IKE_SA so created inherits all of the original IKE_SA's
CHILD_SAs. Use the new IKE_SA for all control messages needed to
maintain the CHILD_SAs created by the old IKE_SA, and delete the old
IKE_SA. The Delete payload to delete itself MUST be the last request
sent over an IKE_SA.
SAs SHOULD be rekeyed proactively, i.e., the new SA should be
established before the old one expires and becomes unusable. Enough
time should elapse between the time the new SA is established and the
old one becomes unusable so that traffic can be switched over to the
new SA.
A difference between IKEv1 and IKEv2 is that in IKEv1 SA lifetimes
were negotiated. In IKEv2, each end of the SA is responsible for
enforcing its own lifetime policy on the SA and rekeying the SA when
necessary. If the two ends have different lifetime policies, the end
with the shorter lifetime will end up always being the one to request
the rekeying. If an SA bundle has been inactive for a long time and
if an endpoint would not initiate the SA in the absence of traffic,
the endpoint MAY choose to close the SA instead of rekeying it when
its lifetime expires. It SHOULD do so if there has been no traffic
since the last time the SA was rekeyed.
If the two ends have the same lifetime policies, it is possible that
both will initiate a rekeying at the same time (which will result in
redundant SAs). To reduce the probability of this happening, the
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 21]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
timing of rekeying requests SHOULD be jittered (delayed by a random
amount of time after the need for rekeying is noticed).
This form of rekeying may temporarily result in multiple similar SAs
between the same pairs of nodes. When there are two SAs eligible to
receive packets, a node MUST accept incoming packets through either
SA. If redundant SAs are created though such a collision, the SA
created with the lowest of the four nonces used in the two exchanges
SHOULD be closed by the endpoint that created it.
Note that IKEv2 deliberately allows parallel SAs with the same
traffic selectors between common endpoints. One of the purposes of
this is to support traffic QoS differences among the SAs (see section
4.1 of [RFC2983]). Hence unlike IKEv1, the combination of the
endpoints and the traffic selectors may not uniquely identify an SA
between those endpoints, so the IKEv1 rekeying heuristic of deleting
SAs on the basis of duplicate traffic selectors SHOULD NOT be used.
The node that initiated the surviving rekeyed SA SHOULD delete the
replaced SA after the new one is established.
There are timing windows - particularly in the presence of lost
packets - where endpoints may not agree on the state of an SA. The
responder to a CREATE_CHILD_SA MUST be prepared to accept messages on
an SA before sending its response to the creation request, so there
is no ambiguity for the initiator. The initiator MAY begin sending on
an SA as soon as it processes the response. The initiator, however,
cannot receive on a newly created SA until it receives and processes
the response to its CREATE_CHILD_SA request. How, then, is the
responder to know when it is OK to send on the newly created SA?
From a technical correctness and interoperability perspective, the
responder MAY begin sending on an SA as soon as it sends its response
to the CREATE_CHILD_SA request. In some situations, however, this
could result in packets unnecessarily being dropped, so an
implementation MAY want to defer such sending.
The responder can be assured that the initiator is prepared to
receive messages on an SA if either (1) it has received a
cryptographically valid message on the new SA, or (2) the new SA
rekeys an existing SA and it receives an IKE request to close the
replaced SA. When rekeying an SA, the responder SHOULD continue to
send requests on the old SA until it one of those events occurs. When
establishing a new SA, the responder MAY defer sending messages on a
new SA until either it receives one or a timeout has occurred. If an
initiator receives a message on an SA for which it has not received a
response to its CREATE_CHILD_SA request, it SHOULD interpret that as
a likely packet loss and retransmit the CREATE_CHILD_SA request. An
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 22]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
initiator MAY send a dummy message on a newly created SA if it has no
messages queued in order to assure the responder that the initiator
is ready to receive messages.
2.9 Traffic Selector Negotiation
When an IP packet is received by an RFC2401 compliant IPsec subsystem
and matches a "protect" selector in its SPD, the subsystem MUST
protect that packet with IPsec. When no SA exists yet it is the task
of IKE to create it. Maintenance of a system's SPD is outside the
scope of IKE (see [PFKEY] for an example protocol), though some
implementations might update their SPD in connection with the running
of IKE (for an example scenario, see section 1.1.3).
Traffic Selector (TS) payloads allow endpoints to communicate some of
the information from their SPD to their peers. TS payloads specify
the selection criteria for packets that will be forwarded over the
newly set up SA. This can serve as a consistency check in some
scenarios to assure that the SPDs are consistent. In others, it
guides the dynamic update of the SPD.
Two TS payloads appear in each of the messages in the exchange that
creates a CHILD_SA pair. Each TS payload contains one or more Traffic
Selectors. Each Traffic Selector consists of an address range (IPv4
or IPv6), a port range, and an IP protocol ID. In support of the
scenario described in section 1.1.3, an initiator may request that
the responder assign an IP address and tell the initiator what it is.
IKEv2 allows the responder to choose a subset of the traffic proposed
by the initiator. This could happen when the configuration of the
two endpoints are being updated but only one end has received the new
information. Since the two endpoints may be configured by different
people, the incompatibility may persist for an extended period even
in the absence of errors. It also allows for intentionally different
configurations, as when one end is configured to tunnel all addresses
and depends on the other end to have the up to date list.
The first of the two TS payloads is known as TSi (Traffic Selector-
initiator). The second is known as TSr (Traffic Selector-responder).
TSi specifies the source address of traffic forwarded from (or the
destination address of traffic forwarded to) the initiator of the
CHILD_SA pair. TSr specifies the destination address of the traffic
forwarded from (or the source address of the traffic forwarded to)
the responder of the CHILD_SA pair. For example, if Alice initiates
the creation of the CHILD_SA pair from Alice to Bob, and wishes to
tunnel all traffic from subnet 10.2.16.* on Alice's side to subnet
10.16.*.* on Bob's side, Alice would include a single traffic
selector in each TS payload. TSi would specify the address range
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 23]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
(10.2.16.0 - 10.2.16.255) and TSr would specify the address range
(10.16.0.0 - 10.16.255.255). Assuming that proposal was acceptable to
Bob, he would send identical TS payloads back.
The Responder is allowed to narrow the choices by selecting a subset
of the traffic, for instance by eliminating or narrowing the range of
one or more members of the set of traffic selectors, provided the set
does not become the NULL set.
It is possible for the Responder's policy to contain multiple smaller
ranges, all encompassed by the Initiator's traffic selector, and with
the Responder's policy being that each of those ranges should be sent
over a different SA. Continuing the example above, Bob might have a
policy of being willing to tunnel those addresses to and from Alice,
but might require that each address pair be on a separately
negotiated CHILD_SA. If Alice generated her request in response to an
incoming packet from 10.2.16.43 to 10.16.2.123, there would be no way
for Bob to determine which pair of addresses should be included in
this tunnel, and he would have to make his best guess or reject the
request with a status of SINGLE_PAIR_REQUIRED.
To enable Bob to choose the appropriate range in this case, if Alice
has initiated the SA due to a data packet, Alice SHOULD include as
the first traffic selector in each of TSi and TSr a very specific
traffic selector including the addresses in the packet triggering the
request. In the example, Alice would include in TSi two traffic
selectors: the first containing the address range (10.2.16.43 -
10.2.16.43) and the source port and IP protocol from the packet and
the second containing (10.2.16.0 - 10.2.16.255) with all ports and IP
protocols. She would similarly include two traffic selectors in TSr.
If Bob's policy does not allow him to accept the entire set of
traffic selectors in Alice's request, but does allow him to accept
the first selector of TSi and TSr, then Bob MUST narrow the traffic
selectors to a subset that includes Alice's first choices. In this
example, Bob might respond with TSi being (10.2.16.43 - 10.2.16.43)
with all ports and IP protocols.
If Alice creates the CHILD_SA pair not in response to an arriving
packet, but rather - say - upon startup, then there may be no
specific addresses Alice prefers for the initial tunnel over any
other. In that case, the first values in TSi and TSr MAY be ranges
rather than specific values, and Bob chooses a subset of Alice's TSi
and TSr that are acceptable to him. If more than one subset is
acceptable but their union is not, Bob MUST accept some subset and
MAY include a Notify payload of type ADDITIONAL_TS_POSSIBLE to
indicate that Alice might want to try again. This case will only
occur when Alice and Bob are configured differently from one another.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 24]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
If Alice and Bob agree on the granularity of tunnels, she will never
request a tunnel wider than Bob will accept.
2.10 Nonces
The IKE_SA_INIT messages each contain a nonce. These nonces are used
as inputs to cryptographic functions. The CREATE_CHILD_SA request
and the CREATE_CHILD_SA response also contain nonces. These nonces
are used to add freshness to the key derivation technique used to
obtain keys for CHILD_SA, and to ensure creation of strong
pseudorandom bits from the Diffie-Hellman key. Nonces used in IKEv2
MUST be randomly chosen, MUST be at least 128 bits in size, and MUST
be at least half the key size of the negotiated prf. ("prf" refers to
"pseudo-random function", one of the cryptographic algorithms
negotiated in the IKE exchange). If the same random number source is
used for both keys and nonces, care must be taken to ensure that the
latter use does not compromise the former.
2.11 Address and Port Agility
IKE runs over UDP ports 500 and 4500, and implicitly sets up ESP and
AH associations for the same IP addresses it runs over. The IP
addresses and ports in the outer header are, however, not themselves
cryptographically protected, and IKE is designed to work even through
Network Address Translation (NAT) boxes. An implementation MUST
accept incoming requests even if the source port is not 500 or 4500,
and MUST respond to the address and port from which the request was
received. It MUST specify the address and port at which the request
was received as the source address and port in the response. IKE
functions identically over IPv4 or IPv6.
2.12 Reuse of Diffie-Hellman Exponentials
IKE generates keying material using an ephemeral Diffie-Hellman
exchange in order to gain the property of "perfect forward secrecy".
This means that once a connection is closed and its corresponding
keys are forgotten, even someone who has recorded all of the data
from the connection and gets access to all of the long-term keys of
the two endpoints cannot reconstruct the keys used to protect the
conversation without doing a brute force search of the session key
space.
Achieving perfect forward secrecy requires that when a connection is
closed, each endpoint MUST forget not only the keys used by the
connection but any information that could be used to recompute those
keys. In particular, it MUST forget the secrets used in the Diffie-
Hellman calculation and any state that may persist in the state of a
pseudo-random number generator that could be used to recompute the
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 25]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Diffie-Hellman secrets.
Since the computing of Diffie-Hellman exponentials is computationally
expensive, an endpoint may find it advantageous to reuse those
exponentials for multiple connection setups. There are several
reasonable strategies for doing this. An endpoint could choose a new
exponential only periodically though this could result in less-than-
perfect forward secrecy if some connection lasts for less than the
lifetime of the exponential. Or it could keep track of which
exponential was used for each connection and delete the information
associated with the exponential only when some corresponding
connection was closed. This would allow the exponential to be reused
without losing perfect forward secrecy at the cost of maintaining
more state.
Decisions as to whether and when to reuse Diffie-Hellman exponentials
is a private decision in the sense that it will not affect
interoperability. An implementation that reuses exponentials MAY
choose to remember the exponential used by the other endpoint on past
exchanges and if one is reused to avoid the second half of the
calculation.
2.13 Generating Keying Material
In the context of the IKE_SA, four cryptographic algorithms are
negotiated: an encryption algorithm, an integrity protection
algorithm, a Diffie-Hellman group, and a pseudo-random function
(prf). The pseudo-random function is used for the construction of
keying material for all of the cryptographic algorithms used in both
the IKE_SA and the CHILD_SAs.
We assume that each encryption algorithm and integrity protection
algorithm uses a fixed size key, and that any randomly chosen value
of that fixed size can serve as an appropriate key. For algorithms
that accept a variable length key, a fixed key size MUST be specified
as part of the cryptographic transform negotiated. For algorithms
for which not all values are valid keys (such as DES or 3DES with key
parity), they algorithm by which keys are derived from arbitrary
values MUST be specified by the cryptographic transform. For
integrity protection functions based on HMAC, the fixed key size is
the size of the output of the underlying hash function. When the prf
function takes a variable length key, variable length data, and
produces a fixed length output (e.g., when using HMAC), the formulas
in this document apply. When the key for the prf function has fixed
length, the data provided as a key is truncated or padded with zeros
as necessary unless exceptional processing is explained following the
formula.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 26]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Keying material will always be derived as the output of the
negotiated prf algorithm. Since the amount of keying material needed
may be greater than the size of the output of the prf algorithm, we
will use the prf iteratively. We will use the terminology prf+ to
describe the function that outputs a pseudo-random stream based on
the inputs to a prf as follows: (where | indicates concatenation)
prf+ (K,S) = T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | ...
where:
T1 = prf (K, S | 0x01)
T2 = prf (K, T1 | S | 0x02)
T3 = prf (K, T2 | S | 0x03)
T4 = prf (K, T3 | S | 0x04)
continuing as needed to compute all required keys. The keys are taken
from the output string without regard to boundaries (e.g., if the
required keys are a 256 bit AES key and a 160 bit HMAC key, and the
prf function generates 160 bits, the AES key will come from T1 and
the beginning of T2, while the HMAC key will come from the rest of T2
and the beginning of T3).
The constant concatenated to the end of each string feeding the prf
is a single octet. prf+ in this document is not defined beyond 255
times the size of the prf output.
2.14 Generating Keying Material for the IKE_SA
The shared keys are computed as follows. A quantity called SKEYSEED
is calculated from the nonces exchanged during the IKE_SA_INIT
exchange and the Diffie-Hellman shared secret established during that
exchange. SKEYSEED is used to calculate seven other secrets: SK_d
used for deriving new keys for the CHILD_SAs established with this
IKE_SA; SK_ai and SK_ar used as a key to the integrity protection
algorithm for authenticating the component messages of subsequent
exchanges; SK_ei and SK_er used for encrypting (and of course
decrypting) all subsequent exchanges; and SK_pi and SK_pr which are
used when generating an AUTH payload.
SKEYSEED and its derivatives are computed as follows:
SKEYSEED = prf(Ni | Nr, g^ir)
{SK_d | SK_ai | SK_ar | SK_ei | SK_er | SK_pi | SK_pr }
= prf+ (SKEYSEED, Ni | Nr | SPIi | SPIr )
(indicating that the quantities SK_d, SK_ai, SK_ar, SK_ei, SK_er,
SK_pi, and SK_pr are taken in order from the generated bits of the
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 27]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
prf+). g^ir is the shared secret from the ephemeral Diffie-Hellman
exchange. g^ir is represented as a string of octets in big endian
order padded with zeros if necessary to make it the length of the
modulus. Ni and Nr are the nonces, stripped of any headers. If the
negotiated prf takes a fixed length key and the lengths of Ni and Nr
do not add up to that length, half the bits must come from Ni and
half from Nr, taking the first bits of each.
The two directions of traffic flow use different keys. The keys used
to protect messages from the original initiator are SK_ai and SK_ei.
The keys used to protect messages in the other direction are SK_ar
and SK_er. Each algorithm takes a fixed number of bits of keying
material, which is specified as part of the algorithm. For integrity
algorithms based on a keyed hash, the key size is always equal to the
length of the output of the underlying hash function.
2.15 Authentication of the IKE_SA
When not using extended authentication (see section 2.16), the peers
are authenticated by having each sign (or MAC using a shared secret
as the key) a block of data. For the responder, the octets to be
signed start with the first octet of the first SPI in the header of
the second message and end with the last octet of the last payload in
the second message. Appended to this (for purposes of computing the
signature) are the initiator's nonce Ni (just the value, not the
payload containing it), and the value prf(SK_pr,IDr') where IDr' is
the responder's ID payload excluding the fixed header. Note that
neither the nonce Ni nor the value prf(SK_pr,IDr') are transmitted.
Similarly, the initiator signs the first message, starting with the
first octet of the first SPI in the header and ending with the last
octet of the last payload. Appended to this (for purposes of
computing the signature) are the responder's nonce Nr, and the value
prf(SK_pi,IDi'). In the above calculation, IDi' and IDr' are the
entire ID payloads excluding the fixed header. It is critical to the
security of the exchange that each side sign the other side's nonce.
Note that all of the payloads are included under the signature,
including any payload types not defined in this document. If the
first message of the exchange is sent twice (the second time with a
responder cookie and/or a different Diffie-Hellman group), it is the
second version of the message that is signed.
Optionally, messages 3 and 4 MAY include a certificate, or
certificate chain providing evidence that the key used to compute a
digital signature belongs to the name in the ID payload. The
signature or MAC will be computed using algorithms dictated by the
type of key used by the signer, and specified by the Auth Method
field in the Authentication payload. There is no requirement that
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 28]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
the Initiator and Responder sign with the same cryptographic
algorithms. The choice of cryptographic algorithms depends on the
type of key each has. In particular, the initiator may be using a
shared key while the responder may have a public signature key and
certificate. It will commonly be the case (but it is not required)
that if a shared secret is used for authentication that the same key
is used in both directions. Note that it is a common but typically
insecure practice to have a shared key derived solely from a user
chosen password without incorporating another source of randomness.
This is typically insecure because user chosen passwords are unlikely
to have sufficient unpredictability to resist dictionary attacks and
these attacks are not prevented in this authentication method.
(Applications using password-based authentication for bootstrapping
and IKE_SA should use the authentication method in section 2.16,
which is designed to prevent off-line dictionary attacks). The pre-
shared key SHOULD contain as much unpredictability as the strongest
key being negotiated. In the case of a pre-shared key, the AUTH
value is computed as:
AUTH = prf(prf(Shared Secret,"Key Pad for IKEv2"), <message
octets>)
where the string "Key Pad for IKEv2" is 17 ASCII characters without
null termination. The shared secret can be variable length. The pad
string is added so that if the shared secret is derived from a
password, the IKE implementation need not store the password in
cleartext, but rather can store the value prf(Shared Secret,"Key Pad
for IKEv2"), which could not be used as a password equivalent for
protocols other than IKEv2. As noted above, deriving the shared
secret from a password is not secure. This construction is used
because it is anticipated that people will do it anyway. The
management interface by which the Shared Secret is provided MUST
accept ASCII strings of at least 64 octets and MUST NOT add a null
terminator before using them as shared secrets. The management
interface MAY accept other forms, like hex encoding. If the
negotiated prf takes a fixed size key, the shared secret MUST be of
that fixed size.
2.16 Extended Authentication Protocol Methods
In addition to authentication using public key signatures and shared
secrets, IKE supports authentication using methods defined in RFC
2284 [EAP]. Typically, these methods are asymmetric (designed for a
user authenticating to a server), and they may not be mutual. For
this reason, these protocols are typically used to authenticate the
initiator to the responder and MUST be used in conjunction with a
public key signature based authentication of the responder to the
initiator. These methods are often associated with mechanisms
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 29]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
referred to as "Legacy Authentication" mechanisms.
While this memo references [EAP] with the intent that new methods can
be added in the future without updating this specification, the
protocols expected to be used most commonly are documented here and
in section 3.16. [EAP] defines an authentication protocol requiring
a variable number of messages. Extended Authentication is implemented
in IKE as additional IKE_AUTH exchanges that MUST be completed in
order to initialize the IKE_SA.
An initiator indicates a desire to use extended authentication by
leaving out the AUTH payload from message 3. By including an IDi
payload but not an AUTH payload, the initiator has declared an
identity but has not proven it. If the responder is willing to use an
extended authentication method, it will place an EAP payload in
message 4 and defer sending SAr2, TSi, and TSr until initiator
authentication is complete in a subsequent IKE_AUTH exchange. In the
case of a minimal extended authentication, the initial SA
establishment will appear as follows:
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni -->
<-- HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ]
HDR, SK {IDi, [CERTREQ,] [IDr,]
SAi2, TSi, TSr} -->
<-- HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT,] AUTH,
EAP }
HDR, SK {EAP} -->
<-- HDR, SK {EAP (success)}
HDR, SK {AUTH} -->
<-- HDR, SK {AUTH, SAr2, TSi, TSr }
For EAP methods that create a shared key as a side effect of
authentication, that shared key MUST be used by both the Initiator
and Responder to generate AUTH payloads in messages 5 and 6 using the
syntax for shared secrets specified in section 2.15. The shared key
from EAP is the field from the EAP specification named MSK. The
shared key generated during an IKE exchange MUST NOT be used for any
other purpose.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 30]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
EAP methods that do not establish a shared key SHOULD NOT be used, as
they are subject to a number of man-in-the-middle attacks [EAPMITM]
if these EAP methods are used in other protocols that do not use a
server-authenticated tunnel. Please see the Security Considerations
section for more details. If EAP methods that do not generate a
shared key are used, the AUTH payloads in messages 7 and 8 MUST be
generated using SK_pi and SK_pr respectively.
The Initiator of an IKE_SA using EAP SHOULD be capable of extending
the initial protocol exchange to at least ten IKE_AUTH exchanges in
the event the Responder sends notification messages and/or retries
the authentication prompt. The protocol terminates when the Responder
sends the Initiator an EAP payload containing either a success or
failure type. In such an extended exchange, the EAP AUTH payloads
MUST be included in the two messages following the one containing the
EAP (success) message.
2.17 Generating Keying Material for CHILD_SAs
CHILD_SAs are created either by being piggybacked on the IKE_AUTH
exchange, or in a CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange. Keying material for them
is generated as follows:
KEYMAT = prf+(SK_d, Ni | Nr)
Where Ni and Nr are the Nonces from the IKE_SA_INIT exchange if this
request is the first CHILD_SA created or the fresh Ni and Nr from the
CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange if this is a subsequent creation.
For CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges with PFS the keying material is defined
as:
KEYMAT = prf+(SK_d, g^ir (new) | Ni | Nr )
where g^ir (new) is the shared secret from the ephemeral Diffie-
Hellman exchange of this CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange (represented as an
octet string in big endian order padded with zeros in the high order
bits if necessary to make it the length of the modulus).
A single CHILD_SA negotiation may result in multiple security
associations. ESP and AH SAs exist in pairs (one in each direction),
and four SAs could be created in a single CHILD_SA negotiation if a
combination of ESP and AH is being negotiated.
Keying material MUST be taken from the expanded KEYMAT in the
following order:
All keys for SAs carrying data from the initiator to the responder
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 31]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
are taken before SAs going in the reverse direction.
If multiple IPsec protocols are negotiated, keying material is
taken in the order in which the protocol headers will appear in
the encapsulated packet.
If a single protocol has both encryption and authentication keys,
the encryption key is taken from the first octets of KEYMAT and
the authentication key is taken from the next octets.
Each cryptographic algorithm takes a fixed number of bits of keying
material specified as part of the algorithm.
2.18 Rekeying IKE_SAs using a CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange
The CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange can be used to rekey an existing IKE_SA
(see section 2.8). New Initiator and Responder SPIs are supplied in
the SPI fields. The TS payloads are omitted when rekeying an IKE_SA.
SKEYSEED for the new IKE_SA is computed using SK_d from the existing
IKE_SA as follows:
SKEYSEED = prf(SK_d (old), [g^ir (new)] | Ni | Nr)
where g^ir (new) is the shared secret from the ephemeral Diffie-
Hellman exchange of this CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange (represented as an
octet string in big endian order padded with zeros if necessary to
make it the length of the modulus) and Ni and Nr are the two nonces
stripped of any headers.
The new IKE_SA MUST reset its message counters to 0.
SK_d, SK_ai, SK_ar, and SK_ei, and SK_er are computed from SKEYSEED
as specified in section 2.14.
2.19 Requesting an internal address on a remote network
Most commonly occurring in the endpoint to security gateway scenario,
an endpoint may need an IP address in the network protected by the
security gateway, and may need to have that address dynamically
assigned. A request for such a temporary address can be included in
any request to create a CHILD_SA (including the implicit request in
message 3) by including a CP payload.
This function provides address allocation to an IRAC (IPsec Remote
Access Client) trying to tunnel into a network protected by an IRAS
(IPsec Remote Access Server). Since the IKE_AUTH exchange creates an
IKE_SA and a CHILD_SA, the IRAC MUST request the IRAS controlled
address (and optionally other information concerning the protected
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 32]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
network) in the IKE_AUTH exchange. The IRAS may procure an address
for the IRAC from any number of sources such as a DHCP/BOOTP server
or its own address pool.
Initiator Responder
----------------------------- ---------------------------
HDR, SK {IDi, [CERT,] [CERTREQ,]
[IDr,] AUTH, CP(CFG_REQUEST),
SAi2, TSi, TSr} -->
<-- HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT,] AUTH,
CP(CFG_REPLY), SAr2,
TSi, TSr}
In all cases, the CP payload MUST be inserted before the SA payload.
In variations of the protocol where there are multiple IKE_AUTH
exchanges, the CP payloads MUST be inserted in the messages
containing the SA payloads.
CP(CFG_REQUEST) MUST contain at least an INTERNAL_ADDRESS attribute
(either IPv4 or IPv6) but MAY contain any number of additional
attributes the initiator wants returned in the response.
For example, message from Initiator to Responder:
CP(CFG_REQUEST)
INTERNAL_ADDRESS(0.0.0.0)
INTERNAL_NETMASK(0.0.0.0)
INTERNAL_DNS(0.0.0.0)
TSi = (0, 0-65536,0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255)
TSr = (0, 0-65536,0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255)
NOTE: Traffic Selectors contain (protocol, port range, address range)
Message from Responder to Initiator:
CP(CFG_REPLY)
INTERNAL_ADDRESS(10.168.219.202)
INTERNAL_NETMASK(255.255.255.0)
INTERNAL_SUBNET(10.168.219.0/255.255.255.0)
TSi = (0, 0-65536,10.168.219.202-10.168.219.202)
TSr = (0, 0-65536,10.168.219.0-10.168.219.255)
All returned values will be implementation dependent. As can be seen
in the above example, the IRAS MAY also send other attributes that
were not included in CP(CFG_REQUEST) and MAY ignore the non-
mandatory attributes that it does not support.
The responder MUST NOT send a CFG_REPLY without having first received
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 33]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
a CP(CFG_REQUEST) from the initiator, because we do not want the IRAS
to perform an unnecessary configuration lookup if the IRAC cannot
process the REPLY. In the case where the IRAS's configuration
requires that CP be used for a given identity IDi, but IRAC has
failed to send a CP(CFG_REQUEST), IRAS MUST fail the request, and
terminate the IKE exchange with a FAILED_CP_REQUIRED error.
2.20 Requesting the Peer's Version
An IKE peer wishing to inquire about the other peer's IKE software
version information MAY use the method below. This is an example of
a configuration request within an INFORMATIONAL Exchange, after the
IKE_SA and first CHILD_SA have been created.
An IKE implementation MAY decline to give out version information
prior to authentication or even after authentication to prevent
trolling in case some implementation is known to have some security
weakness. In that case, it MUST either return an empty string or no
CP payload if CP is not supported.
Initiator Responder
----------------------------- --------------------------
HDR, SK{CP(CFG_REQUEST)} -->
<-- HDR, SK{CP(CFG_REPLY)}
CP(CFG_REQUEST)
APPLICATION_VERSION("")
CP(CFG_REPLY)
APPLICATION_VERSION("foobar v1.3beta, (c) Foo Bar Inc.")
2.21 Error Handling
There are many kinds of errors that can occur during IKE processing.
If a request is received that is badly formatted or unacceptable for
reasons of policy (e.g., no matching cryptographic algorithms), the
response MUST contain a Notify payload indicating the error. If an
error occurs outside the context of an IKE request (e.g., the node is
getting ESP messages on a nonexistent SPI), the node SHOULD initiate
an INFORMATIONAL Exchange with a Notify payload describing the
problem.
Errors that occur before a cryptographically protected IKE_SA is
established must be handled very carefully. There is a trade-off
between wanting to be helpful in diagnosing a problem and responding
to it and wanting to avoid being a dupe in a denial of service attack
based on forged messages.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 34]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
If a node receives a message on UDP port 500 outside the context of
an IKE_SA known to it (and not a request to start one), it may be the
result of a recent crash of the node. If the message is marked as a
response, the node MAY audit the suspicious event but MUST NOT
respond. If the message is marked as a request, the node MAY audit
the suspicious event and MAY send a response. If a response is sent,
the response MUST be sent to the IP address and port from whence it
came with the same IKE SPIs and the Message ID copied. The response
MUST NOT be cryptographically protected and MUST contain a Notify
payload indicating INVALID_IKE_SPI.
A node receiving such an unprotected Notify payload MUST NOT respond
and MUST NOT change the state of any existing SAs. The message might
be a forgery or might be a response the genuine correspondent was
tricked into sending. A node SHOULD treat such a message (and also a
network message like ICMP destination unreachable) as a hint that
there might be problems with SAs to that IP address and SHOULD
initiate a liveness test for any such IKE_SA. An implementation
SHOULD limit the frequency of such tests to avoid being tricked into
participating in a denial of service attack.
A node receiving a suspicious message from an IP address with which
it has an IKE_SA MAY send an IKE Notify payload in an IKE
INFORMATIONAL exchange over that SA. The recipient MUST NOT change
the state of any SA's as a result but SHOULD audit the event to aid
in diagnosing malfunctions. A node MUST limit the rate at which it
will send messages in response to unprotected messages.
2.22 IPComp
Use of IP compression [IPCOMP] can be negotiated as part of the setup
of a CHILD_SA. While IP compression involves an extra header in each
packet and a CPI (compression parameter index), the virtual
"compression association" has no life outside the ESP or AH SA that
contains it. Compression associations disappear when the
corresponding ESP or AH SA goes away, and is not explicitly mentioned
in any DELETE payload.
Negotiation of IP compression is separate from the negotiation of
cryptographic parameters associated with a CHILD_SA. A node
requesting a CHILD_SA MAY advertise its support for one or more
compression algorithms though one or more Notify payloads of type
IPCOMP_SUPPORTED. The response MAY indicate acceptance of a single
compression algorithm with a Notify payload of type IPCOMP_SUPPORTED.
These payloads MUST NOT occur messages that do not contain SA
payloads.
While there has been discussion of allowing multiple compression
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 35]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
algorithms to be accepted and to have different compression
algorithms available for the two directions of a CHILD_SA,
implementations of this specification MUST NOT accept an IPComp
algorithm that was not proposed, MUST NOT accept more than one, and
MUST NOT compress using an algorithm other than one proposed and
accepted in the setup of the CHILD_SA.
A side effect of separating the negotiation of IPComp from
cryptographic parameters is that it is not possible to propose
multiple cryptographic suites and propose IP compression with some of
them but not others.
2.23 NAT Traversal
NAT (Network Address Translation) gateways are a controversial
subject. This section briefly describes what they are and how they
are likely to act on IKE traffic. Many people believe that NATs are
evil and that we should not design our protocols so as to make them
work better. IKEv2 does specify some unintuitive processing rules in
order that NATs are more likely to work.
NATs exist primarily because of the shortage of IPv4 addresses,
though there are other rationales. IP nodes that are "behind" a NAT
have IP addresses that are not globally unique, but rather are
assigned from some space that is unique within the network behind the
NAT but which are likely to be reused by nodes behind other NATs.
Generally, nodes behind NATs can communicate with other nodes behind
the same NAT and with nodes with globally unique addresses, but not
with nodes behind other NATs. There are exceptions to that rule.
When those nodes make connections to nodes on the real Internet, the
NAT gateway "translates" the IP source address to an address that
will be routed back to the gateway. Messages to the gateway from the
Internet have their destination addresses "translated" to the
internal address that will route the packet to the correct endnode.
NATs are designed to be "transparent" to endnodes. Neither software
on the node behind the NAT nor the node on the Internet require
modification to communicate through the NAT. Achieving this
transparency is more difficult with some protocols than with others.
Protocols that include IP addresses of the endpoints within the
payloads of the packet will fail unless the NAT gateway understands
the protocol and modifies the internal references as well as those in
the headers. Such knowledge is inherently unreliable, is a network
layer violation, and often results in subtle problems.
Opening an IPsec connection through a NAT introduces special
problems. If the connection runs in transport mode, changing the IP
addresses on packets will cause the checksums to fail and the NAT
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 36]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
cannot correct the checksums because they are cryptographically
protected. Even in tunnel mode, there are routing problems because
transparently translating the addresses of AH and ESP packets
requires special logic in the NAT and that logic is heuristic and
unreliable in nature. For that reason, IKEv2 can negotiate UDP
encapsulation of IKE, ESP, and AH packets. This encoding is slightly
less efficient but is easier for NATs to process. In addition,
firewalls may be configured to pass IPsec traffic over UDP but not
ESP/AH or vice versa.
It is a common practice of NATs to translate TCP and UDP port numbers
as well as addresses and use the port numbers of inbound packets to
decide which internal node should get a given packet. For this
reason, even though IKE packets MUST be sent from and to UDP port
500, they MUST be accepted coming from any port and responses MUST be
sent to the port from whence they came. This is because the ports may
be modified as the packets pass through NATs. Similarly, IP addresses
of the IKE endpoints are generally not included in the IKE payloads
because the payloads are cryptographically protected and could not be
transparently modified by NATs.
Port 4500 is reserved for UDP encapsulated ESP, AH, and IKE. When
working through a NAT, it is generally better to pass IKE packets
over port 4500 because some older NATs handle IKE traffic on port 500
cleverly in an attempt to transparently establish IPsec connections
between endpoints that don't handle NAT traversal themselves. Such
NATs may interfere with the straightforward NAT traversal envisioned
by this document, so an IPsec endpoint that discovers a NAT between
it and its correspondent MUST send all subsequent traffic to and from
port 4500, which NATs should not treat specially (as they might with
port 500).
The specific requirements for supporting NAT traversal are listed
below. Support for NAT traversal is optional. In this section only,
requirements listed as MUST only apply to implementations supporting
NAT traversal.
IKE MUST listen on port 4500 as well as port 500. IKE MUST respond
to the IP address and port from which packets arrived.
Both IKE initiator and responder MUST include in their IKE_SA_INIT
packets Notify payloads of type NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP and
NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP. Those payloads can be used to detect
if there is NAT between the hosts, and which end is behind the
NAT. The location of the payloads in the IKE_SA_INIT packets are
just after the Ni and Nr payloads (before the optional CERTREQ
payload).
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 37]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
If none of the NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP payload(s) received matches
the hash of the source IP and port found from the IP header of the
packet containing the payload, it means that the other end is
behind NAT (i.e., someone along the route changed the source
address of the original packet to match the address of the NAT
box). In this case this end should allow dynamic update of the
other ends IP address, as described later.
If the NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP payload received does not
match the hash of the destination IP and port found from the IP
header of the packet containing the payload, it means that this
end is behind NAT (i.e., the original sender sent the packet to
address of the NAT box, which then changed the destination address
to this host). In this case the this end should start sending
keepalive packets as explained in [Hutt04].
The IKE initiator MUST check these payloads if present and if they
do not match the addresses in the outer packet MUST tunnel all
future IKE, ESP, and AH packets associated with this IKE_SA over
UDP port 4500.
To tunnel IKE packets over UDP port 4500, the IKE header has four
octets of zero prepended and the result immediately follows the
UDP header. To tunnel ESP packets over UDP port 4500, the ESP
header immediately follows the UDP header. Since the first four
bytes of the ESP header contain the SPI, and the SPI cannot
validly be zero, it is always possible to distinguish ESP and IKE
messages.
The original source and destination IP address required for the
transport mode TCP and UDP packet checksum fixup (see [Hutt04])
are obtained from the Traffic Selectors associated with the
exchange. In the case of NAT-T, the Traffic Selectors MUST contain
exactly one IP address which is then used as the original IP
address.
There are cases where a NAT box decides to remove mappings that
are still alive (for example, the keepalive interval is too long,
or the NAT box is rebooted). To recover in these cases, hosts that
are not behind a NAT SHOULD send all packets (including
retransmission packets) to the IP address and port from the last
valid authenticated packet from the other end (i.e., dynamically
update the address). A host behind a NAT SHOULD NOT do this
because it opens a DoS attack possibility. Any authenticated IKE
packet or any authenticated UDP encapsulated ESP packet can be
used to detect that the IP address or the port has changed.
Note that similar but probably not identical actions will likely
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 38]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
be needed to make IKE work with Mobile IP, but such processing is
not addressed by this document.
2.24 ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification)
When IPsec tunnels behave as originally specified in [RFC2401], ECN
usage is not appropriate for the outer IP headers because tunnel
decapsulation processing discards ECN congestion indications to the
detriment of the network. ECN support for IPsec tunnels for
IKEv1-based IPsec requires multiple operating modes and negotiation
(see RFC3168]). IKEv2 simplifies this situation by requiring that
ECN be usable in the outer IP headers of all tunnel-mode IPsec SAs
created by IKEv2. Specifically, tunnel encapsulators and
decapsulators for all tunnel-mode Security Associations (SAs) created
by IKEv2 MUST support the ECN full-functionality option for tunnels
specified in [RFC3168] and MUST implement the tunnel encapsulation
and decapsulation processing specified in [RFC2401bis] to prevent
discarding of ECN congestion indications.
3 Header and Payload Formats
3.1 The IKE Header
IKE messages use UDP ports 500 and/or 4500, with one IKE message per
UDP datagram. Information from the UDP header is largely ignored
except that the IP addresses and UDP ports from the headers are
reversed and used for return packets. When sent on UDP port 500, IKE
messages begin immediately following the UDP header. When sent on UDP
port 4500, IKE messages have prepended four octets of zero. These
four octets of zero are not part of the IKE message and are not
included in any of the length fields or checksums defined by IKE.
Each IKE message begins with the IKE header, denoted HDR in this
memo. Following the header are one or more IKE payloads each
identified by a "Next Payload" field in the preceding payload.
Payloads are processed in the order in which they appear in an IKE
message by invoking the appropriate processing routine according to
the "Next Payload" field in the IKE header and subsequently according
to the "Next Payload" field in the IKE payload itself until a "Next
Payload" field of zero indicates that no payloads follow. If a
payload of type "Encrypted" is found, that payload is decrypted and
its contents parsed as additional payloads. An Encrypted payload MUST
be the last payload in a packet and an encrypted payload MUST NOT
contain another encrypted payload.
The Recipient SPI in the header identifies an instance of an IKE
security association. It is therefore possible for a single instance
of IKE to multiplex distinct sessions with multiple peers.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 39]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
All multi-octet fields representing integers are laid out in big
endian order (aka most significant byte first, or network byte
order).
The format of the IKE header is shown in Figure 4.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! IKE_SA Initiator's SPI !
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! IKE_SA Responder's SPI !
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload ! MjVer ! MnVer ! Exchange Type ! Flags !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Message ID !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: IKE Header Format
o Initiator's SPI (8 octets) - A value chosen by the
initiator to identify a unique IKE security association. This
value MUST NOT be zero.
o Responder's SPI (8 octets) - A value chosen by the
responder to identify a unique IKE security association. This
value MUST be zero in the first message of an IKE Initial
Exchange (including repeats of that message including a
cookie) and MUST NOT be zero in any other message.
o Next Payload (1 octet) - Indicates the type of payload that
immediately follows the header. The format and value of each
payload is defined below.
o Major Version (4 bits) - indicates the major version of the IKE
protocol in use. Implementations based on this version of IKE
MUST set the Major Version to 2. Implementations based on
previous versions of IKE and ISAKMP MUST set the Major Version
to 1. Implementations based on this version of IKE MUST reject
or ignore messages containing a version number greater than
2.
o Minor Version (4 bits) - indicates the minor version of the
IKE protocol in use. Implementations based on this version of
IKE MUST set the Minor Version to 0. They MUST ignore the minor
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 40]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
version number of received messages.
o Exchange Type (1 octet) - indicates the type of exchange being
used. This constrains the payloads sent in each message and
orderings of messages in an exchange.
Exchange Type Value
RESERVED 0-33
IKE_SA_INIT 34
IKE_AUTH 35
CREATE_CHILD_SA 36
INFORMATIONAL 37
Reserved for IKEv2+ 38-239
Reserved for private use 240-255
o Flags (1 octet) - indicates specific options that are set
for the message. Presence of options are indicated by the
appropriate bit in the flags field being set. The bits are
defined LSB first, so bit 0 would be the least significant
bit of the Flags octet. In the description below, a bit
being 'set' means its value is '1', while 'cleared' means
its value is '0'.
-- X(reserved) (bits 0-2) - These bits MUST be cleared
when sending and MUST be ignored on receipt.
-- I(nitiator) (bit 3 of Flags) - This bit MUST be set in
messages sent by the original Initiator of the IKE_SA
and MUST be cleared in messages sent by the original
Responder. It is used by the recipient to determine
which eight octets of the SPI was generated by the
recipient.
-- V(ersion) (bit 4 of Flags) - This bit indicates that
the transmitter is capable of speaking a higher major
version number of the protocol than the one indicated
in the major version number field. Implementations of
IKEv2 must clear this bit when sending and MUST ignore
it in incoming messages.
-- R(esponse) (bit 5 of Flags) - This bit indicates that
this message is a response to a message containing
the same message ID. This bit MUST be cleared in all
request messages and MUST be set in all responses.
An IKE endpoint MUST NOT generate a response to a
message that is marked as being a response.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 41]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
-- X(reserved) (bits 6-7 of Flags) - These bits MUST be
cleared when sending and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Message ID (4 octets) - Message identifier used to control
retransmission of lost packets and matching of requests and
responses. It is essential to the security of the protocol
because it is used to prevent message replay attacks.
See sections 2.1 and 2.2.
o Length (4 octets) - Length of total message (header + payloads)
in octets.
3.2 Generic Payload Header
Each IKE payload defined in sections 3.3 through 3.16 begins with a
generic payload header, shown in Figure 5. Figures for each payload
below will include the generic payload header but for brevity the
description of each field will be omitted.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Generic Payload Header
The Generic Payload Header fields are defined as follows:
o Next Payload (1 octet) - Identifier for the payload type of the
next payload in the message. If the current payload is the last
in the message, then this field will be 0. This field provides
a "chaining" capability whereby additional payloads can be
added to a message by appending it to the end of the message
and setting the "Next Payload" field of the preceding payload
to indicate the new payload's type. An Encrypted payload,
which must always be the last payload of a message, is an
exception. It contains data structures in the format of
additional payloads. In the header of an Encrypted payload,
the Next Payload field is set to the payload type of the first
contained payload (instead of 0).
Payload Type Values
Next Payload Type Notation Value
No Next Payload 0
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 42]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
RESERVED 1-32
Security Association SA 33
Key Exchange KE 34
Identification - Initiator IDi 35
Identification - Responder IDr 36
Certificate CERT 37
Certificate Request CERTREQ 38
Authentication AUTH 39
Nonce Ni, Nr 40
Notify N 41
Delete D 42
Vendor ID V 43
Traffic Selector - Initiator TSi 44
Traffic Selector - Responder TSr 45
Encrypted E 46
Configuration CP 47
Extended Authentication EAP 48
RESERVED TO IANA 49-127
PRIVATE USE 128-255
Payload type values 1-32 should not be used so that there is no
overlap with the code assignments for IKEv1. Payload type values
49-127 are reserved to IANA for future assignment in IKEv2 (see
section 6). Payload type values 128-255 are for private use among
mutually consenting parties.
o Critical (1 bit) - MUST be set to zero if the sender wants
the recipient to skip this payload if he does not
understand the payload type code in the Next Payload field
of the previous payload. MUST be set to one if the
sender wants the recipient to reject this entire message
if he does not understand the payload type. MUST be ignored
by the recipient if the recipient understands the payload type
code. MUST be set to zero for payload types defined in this
document. Note that the critical bit applies to the current
payload rather than the "next" payload whose type code
appears in the first octet. The reasoning behind not setting
the critical bit for payloads defined in this document is
that all implementations MUST understand all payload types
defined in this document and therefore must ignore the
Critical bit's value. Skipped payloads are expected to
have valid Next Payload and Payload Length fields.
o RESERVED (7 bits) - MUST be sent as zero; MUST be ignored on
receipt.
o Payload Length (2 octets) - Length in octets of the current
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 43]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
payload, including the generic payload header.
3.3 Security Association Payload
The Security Association Payload, denoted SA in this memo, is used to
negotiate attributes of a security association. Assembly of Security
Association Payloads requires great peace of mind. An SA payload MAY
contain multiple proposals. If there is more than one, they MUST be
ordered from most preferred to least preferred. Each proposal may
contain multiple IPsec protocols (where a protocol is IKE, ESP, or
AH), each protocol MAY contain multiple transforms, and each
transform MAY contain multiple attributes. When parsing an SA, an
implementation MUST check that the total Payload Length is consistent
with the payload's internal lengths and counts. Proposals,
Transforms, and Attributes each have their own variable length
encodings. They are nested such that the Payload Length of an SA
includes the combined contents of the SA, Proposal, Transform, and
Attribute information. The length of a Proposal includes the lengths
of all Transforms and Attributes it contains. The length of a
Transform includes the lengths of all Attributes it contains.
The syntax of Security Associations, Proposals, Transforms, and
Attributes is based on ISAKMP, however the semantics are somewhat
different. The reason for the complexity and the hierarchy is to
allow for multiple possible combinations of algorithms to be encoded
in a single SA. Sometimes there is a choice of multiple algorithms,
while other times there is a combination of algorithms. For example,
an Initiator might want to propose using (AH w/MD5 and ESP w/3DES) OR
(ESP w/MD5 and 3DES).
One of the reasons the semantics of the SA payload has changed from
ISAKMP and IKEv1 is to make the encodings more compact in common
cases.
The Proposal structure contains within it a Proposal # and an IPsec
protocol ID. Each structure MUST have the same Proposal # as the
previous one or be one (1) greater. The first Proposal MUST have a
Proposal # of one (1). If two successive structures have the same
Proposal number, it means that the proposal consists of the first
structure AND the second. So a proposal of AH AND ESP would have two
proposal structures, one for AH and one for ESP and both would have
Proposal #1. A proposal of AH OR ESP would have two proposal
structures, one for AH with proposal #1 and one for ESP with proposal
#2.
Each Proposal/Protocol structure is followed by one or more transform
structures. The number of different transforms is generally
determined by the Protocol. AH generally has a single transform: an
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 44]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
integrity check algorithm. ESP generally has two: an encryption
algorithm and an integrity check algorithm. IKE generally has four
transforms: a Diffie-Hellman group, an integrity check algorithm, a
prf algorithm, and an encryption algorithm. If an algorithm that
combines encryption and integrity protection is proposed, it MUST be
proposed as an encryption algorithm and an integrity protection
algorithm MUST NOT be proposed. For each Protocol, the set of
permissible transforms are assigned transform ID numbers, which
appear in the header of each transform.
If there are multiple transforms with the same Transform Type, the
proposal is an OR of those transforms. If there are multiple
Transforms with different Transform Types, the proposal is an AND of
the different groups. For example, to propose ESP with (3DES or IDEA)
and (HMAC_MD5 or HMAC_SHA), the ESP proposal would contain two
Transform Type 1 candidates (one for 3DES and one for IDEA) and two
Transform Type 2 candidates (one for HMAC_MD5 and one for HMAC_SHA).
This effectively proposes four combinations of algorithms. If the
Initiator wanted to propose only a subset of those - say (3DES and
HMAC_MD5) or (IDEA and HMAC_SHA), there is no way to encode that as
multiple transforms within a single Proposal. Instead, the Initiator
would have to construct two different Proposals, each with two
transforms.
A given transform MAY have one or more Attributes. Attributes are
necessary when the transform can be used in more than one way, as
when an encryption algorithm has a variable key size. The transform
would specify the algorithm and the attribute would specify the key
size. Most transforms do not have attributes. A transform MUST NOT
have multiple attributes of the same type. To propose alternate
values for an attribute (for example, multiple key sizes for the AES
encryption algorithm), and implementation MUST include multiple
Transforms with the same Transform Type each with a single Attribute.
Note that the semantics of Transforms and Attributes are quite
different than in IKEv1. In IKEv1, a single Transform carried
multiple algorithms for a protocol with one carried in the Transform
and the others carried in the Attributes.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 45]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ <Proposals> ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Security Association Payload
o Proposals (variable) - one or more proposal substructures.
The payload type for the Security Association Payload is thirty
three (33).
3.3.1 Proposal Substructure
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! 0 (last) or 2 ! RESERVED ! Proposal Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Proposal # ! Protocol ID ! SPI Size !# of Transforms!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SPI (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ <Transforms> ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Proposal Substructure
o 0 (last) or 2 (more) (1 octet) - Specifies whether this is the
last Proposal Substructure in the SA. This syntax is inherited
from ISAKMP, but is unnecessary because the last Proposal
could be identified from the length of the SA. The value (2)
corresponds to a Payload Type of Proposal in IKEv1, and the
first four octets of the Proposal structure are designed to
look somewhat like the header of a Payload.
o RESERVED (1 octet) - MUST be sent as zero; MUST be ignored on
receipt.
o Proposal Length (2 octets) - Length of this proposal,
including all transforms and attributes that follow.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 46]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
o Proposal # (1 octet) - When a proposal is made, the first
proposal in an SA MUST be #1, and subsequent proposals
MUST either be the same as the previous proposal (indicating
an AND of the two proposals) or one more than the previous
proposal (indicating an OR of the two proposals). When a
proposal is accepted, all of the proposal numbers in the
SA MUST be the same and MUST match the number on the
proposal sent that was accepted.
o Protocol ID (1 octet) - Specifies the IPsec protocol
identifier for the current negotiation. The defined values
are:
Protocol Protocol ID
RESERVED 0
IKE 1
AH 2
ESP 3
RESERVED TO IANA 4-200
PRIVATE USE 201-255
o SPI Size (1 octet) - For an initial IKE_SA negotiation,
this field MUST be zero; the SPI is obtained from the
outer header. During subsequent negotiations,
it is equal to the size, in octets, of the SPI of the
corresponding protocol (8 for IKE, 4 for ESP and AH).
o # of Transforms (1 octet) - Specifies the number of
transforms in this proposal.
o SPI (variable) - The sending entity's SPI. Even if the SPI
Size is not a multiple of 4 octets, there is no padding
applied to the payload. When the SPI Size field is zero,
this field is not present in the Security Association
payload.
o Transforms (variable) - one or more transform substructures.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 47]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
3.3.2 Transform Substructure
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! 0 (last) or 3 ! RESERVED ! Transform Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!Transform Type ! RESERVED ! Transform ID !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Transform Attributes ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Transform Substructure
o 0 (last) or 3 (more) (1 octet) - Specifies whether this is the
last Transform Substructure in the Proposal. This syntax is
inherited from ISAKMP, but is unnecessary because the last
Proposal could be identified from the length of the SA. The
value (3) corresponds to a Payload Type of Transform in IKEv1,
and the first four octets of the Transform structure are
designed to look somewhat like the header of a Payload.
o RESERVED - MUST be sent as zero; MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Transform Length - The length (in octets) of the Transform
Substructure including Header and Attributes.
o Transform Type (1 octet) - The type of transform being specified
in this transform. Different protocols support different
transform types. For some protocols, some of the transforms
may be optional. If a transform is optional and the initiator
wishes to propose that the transform be omitted, no transform
of the given type is included in the proposal. If the
initiator wishes to make use of the transform optional to
the responder, she includes a transform substructure with
transform ID = 0 as one of the options.
o Transform ID (2 octets) - The specific instance of the transform
type being proposed.
Transform Type Values
Transform Used In
Type
Encryption Algorithm 1 (IKE and ESP)
Pseudo-random Function 2 (IKE)
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 48]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Integrity Algorithm 3 (IKE, AH, and optional in ESP)
Diffie-Hellman Group 4 (IKE and optional in AH and ESP)
Extended Sequence Numbers 5 (Optional in AH and ESP)
RESERVED TO IANA 6-240
PRIVATE USE 241-255
For Transform Type 1 (Encryption Algorithm), defined Transform IDs
are:
Name Number Defined In
RESERVED 0
ENCR_DES_IV64 1 (RFC1827)
ENCR_DES 2 (RFC2405)
ENCR_3DES 3 (RFC2451)
ENCR_RC5 4 (RFC2451)
ENCR_IDEA 5 (RFC2451)
ENCR_CAST 6 (RFC2451)
ENCR_BLOWFISH 7 (RFC2451)
ENCR_3IDEA 8 (RFC2451)
ENCR_DES_IV32 9
ENCR_RC4 10
ENCR_NULL 11 (RFC2410)
ENCR_AES_CBC 12
ENCR_AES_CTR 13
values 14-1023 are reserved to IANA. Values 1024-65535 are for
private use among mutually consenting parties.
For Transform Type 2 (Pseudo-random Function), defined Transform IDs
are:
Name Number Defined In
RESERVED 0
PRF_HMAC_MD5 1 (RFC2104)
PRF_HMAC_SHA1 2 (RFC2104)
PRF_HMAC_TIGER 3 (RFC2104)
PRF_AES_CBC 4
values 5-1023 are reserved to IANA. Values 1024-65535 are for
private use among mutually consenting parties.
For Transform Type 3 (Integrity Algorithm), defined Transform IDs
are:
Name Number Defined In
NONE 0
AUTH_HMAC_MD5_96 1 (RFC2403)
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 49]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_96 2 (RFC2404)
AUTH_DES_MAC 3
AUTH_KPDK_MD5 4 (RFC1826)
AUTH_AES_PRF_128 5 (RFC3664)
values 6-1023 are reserved to IANA. Values 1024-65535 are for
private use among mutually consenting parties.
For Transform Type 4 (Diffie-Hellman Group), defined Transform IDs
are:
Name Number
NONE 0
Defined in Appendix B 1 - 4
Defined in [ADDGROUP] 5, 14 - 18
values 6-13 and 19-1023 are reserved to IANA for new MODP, ECP
or EC2N groups. Values 1024-65535 are for private use among
mutually consenting parties.
For Transform Type 5 (Extended Sequence Numbers), defined Transform
IDs are:
Name Number
No Extended Sequence Numbers 0
Extended Sequence Numbers 1
RESERVED 2 - 65535
If Transform Type 5 is not included in a proposal, use of
Extended Sequence Numbers is assumed.
3.3.3 Valid Transform Types by Protocol
The number and type of transforms that accompany an SA payload are
dependent on the protocol in the SA itself. An SA payload proposing
the establishment of an SA has the following mandatory and optional
transform types. A compliant implementation MUST understand all
mandatory and optional types for each protocol it supports (though it
need not accept proposals with unacceptable suites). A proposal MAY
omit the optional types if the only value for them it will accept is
NONE.
Protocol Mandatory Types Optional Types
IKE ENCR, PRF, INTEG, D-H
ESP ENCR INTEG, D-H, ESN
AH INTEG D-H, ESN
3.3.4 Mandatory Transform IDs
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 50]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
The specification of suites that MUST and SHOULD be supported for
interoperability has been removed from this document because they are
likely to change more rapidly than this document evolves.
An important lesson learned from IKEv1 is that no system should only
implement the mandatory algorithms and expect them to be the best
choice for all customers. For example, at the time that this document
was being written, many IKEv1 implementers are starting to migrate to
AES in CBC mode for VPN applications. Many IPsec systems based on
IKEv2 will implement AES, additional Diffie-Hellman groups, and
additional hash algorithms, and some IPsec customers already require
these algorithms in addition to the ones listed above.
It is likely that IANA will add additional transforms in the future,
and some users may want to use private suites, especially for IKE
where implementations should be capable of supporting different
parameters, up to certain size limits. In support of this goal, all
implementations of IKEv2 SHOULD include a management facility that
allows specification (by a user or system administrator) of Diffie-
Hellman parameters (the generator, modulus, and exponent lengths and
values) for new DH groups. Implementations SHOULD provide a
management interface via which these parameters and the associated
transform IDs may be entered (by a user or system administrator), to
enable negotiating such groups.
All implementations of IKEv2 MUST include a management facility that
enables a user or system administrator to specify the suites that are
acceptable for use with IKE. Upon receipt of a payload with a set of
transform IDs, the implementation MUST compare the transmitted
transform IDs against those locally configured via the management
controls, to verify that the proposed suite is acceptable based on
local policy. The implementation MUST reject SA proposals that are
not authorized by these IKE suite controls.
3.3.5 Transform Attributes
Each transform in a Security Association payload may include
attributes that modify or complete the specification of the
transform. These attributes are type/value pairs and are defined
below. For example, if an encryption algorithm has a variable length
key, the key length to be used may be specified as an attribute.
Attributes can have a value with a fixed two octet length or a
variable length value. For the latter, the attribute is encoded as
type/length/value.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 51]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!A! Attribute Type ! AF=0 Attribute Length !
!F! ! AF=1 Attribute Value !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! AF=0 Attribute Value !
! AF=1 Not Transmitted !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Data Attributes
o Attribute Type (2 octets) - Unique identifier for each type of
attribute (see below).
The most significant bit of this field is the Attribute Format
bit (AF). It indicates whether the data attributes follow the
Type/Length/Value (TLV) format or a shortened Type/Value (TV)
format. If the AF bit is zero (0), then the Data Attributes
are of the Type/Length/Value (TLV) form. If the AF bit is a
one (1), then the Data Attributes are of the Type/Value form.
o Attribute Length (2 octets) - Length in octets of the Attribute
Value. When the AF bit is a one (1), the Attribute Value is
only 2 octets and the Attribute Length field is not present.
o Attribute Value (variable length) - Value of the Attribute
associated with the Attribute Type. If the AF bit is a
zero (0), this field has a variable length defined by the
Attribute Length field. If the AF bit is a one (1), the
Attribute Value has a length of 2 octets.
Note that only a single attribute type (Key Length) is defined, and
it is fixed length. The variable length encoding specification is
included only for future extensions. The only algorithms defined in
this document that accept attributes are the AES based encryption,
integrity, and pseudo-random functions, which require a single
attribute specifying key width.
Attributes described as basic MUST NOT be encoded using the variable
length encoding. Variable length attributes MUST NOT be encoded as
basic even if their value can fit into two octets. NOTE: This is a
change from IKEv1, where increased flexibility may have simplified
the composer of messages but certainly complicated the parser.
Attribute Type value Attribute Format
--------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED 0-13
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 52]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Key Length (in bits) 14 TV
RESERVED 15-17
RESERVED TO IANA 18-16383
PRIVATE USE 16384-32767
Values 0-13 and 15-17 were used in a similar context in IKEv1, and
should not be assigned except to matching values. Values 18-16383 are
reserved to IANA. Values 16384-32767 are for private use among
mutually consenting parties.
- Key Length
When using an Encryption Algorithm that has a variable length key,
this attribute specifies the key length in bits. (MUST use network
byte order). This attribute MUST NOT be used when the specified
Encryption Algorithm uses a fixed length key.
3.3.6 Attribute Negotiation
During security association negotiation Initiators present offers to
Responders. Responders MUST select a single complete set of
parameters from the offers (or reject all offers if none are
acceptable). If there are multiple proposals, the Responder MUST
choose a single proposal number and return all of the Proposal
substructures with that Proposal number. If there are multiple
Transforms with the same type the Responder MUST choose a single one.
Any attributes of a selected transform MUST be returned unmodified.
The Initiator of an exchange MUST check that the accepted offer is
consistent with one of its proposals, and if not that response MUST
be rejected.
Negotiating Diffie-Hellman groups presents some special challenges.
SA offers include proposed attributes and a Diffie-Hellman public
number (KE) in the same message. If in the initial exchange the
Initiator offers to use one of several Diffie-Hellman groups, it
SHOULD pick the one the Responder is most likely to accept and
include a KE corresponding to that group. If the guess turns out to
be wrong, the Responder will indicate the correct group in the
response and the Initiator SHOULD pick an element of that group for
its KE value when retrying the first message. It SHOULD, however,
continue to propose its full supported set of groups in order to
prevent a man in the middle downgrade attack.
Implementation Note:
Certain negotiable attributes can have ranges or could have
multiple acceptable values. These include the key length of a
variable key length symmetric cipher. To further interoperability
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 53]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
and to support upgrading endpoints independently, implementers of
this protocol SHOULD accept values which they deem to supply
greater security. For instance if a peer is configured to accept a
variable lengthed cipher with a key length of X bits and is
offered that cipher with a larger key length, the implementation
SHOULD accept the offer if it supports use of the longer key.
Support of this capability allows an implementation to express a
concept of "at least" a certain level of security-- "a key length of
_at least_ X bits for cipher Y".
3.4 Key Exchange Payload
The Key Exchange Payload, denoted KE in this memo, is used to
exchange Diffie-Hellman public numbers as part of a Diffie-Hellman
key exchange. The Key Exchange Payload consists of the IKE generic
payload header followed by the Diffie-Hellman public value itself.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! DH Group # ! RESERVED !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Key Exchange Data ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Key Exchange Payload Format
A key exchange payload is constructed by copying one's Diffie-Hellman
public value into the "Key Exchange Data" portion of the payload.
The length of the Diffie-Hellman public value MUST be equal to the
length of the prime modulus over which the exponentiation was
performed, prepending zero bits to the value if necessary.
The DH Group # identifies the Diffie-Hellman group in which the Key
Exchange Data was computed (see section 3.3.2). If the selected
proposal uses a different Diffie-Hellman group, the message MUST be
rejected with a Notify payload of type INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD.
The payload type for the Key Exchange payload is thirty four (34).
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 54]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
3.5 Identification Payloads
The Identification Payloads, denoted IDi and IDr in this memo, allow
peers to assert an identity to one another. This identity may be used
for policy lookup, but does not necessarily have to match anything in
the CERT payload; both fields may be used by an implementation to
perform access control decisions.
NOTE: In IKEv1, two ID payloads were used in each direction to hold
Traffic Selector information for data passing over the SA. In IKEv2,
this information is carried in Traffic Selector (TS) payloads (see
section 3.13).
The Identification Payload consists of the IKE generic payload header
followed by identification fields as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! ID Type ! RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Identification Data ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: Identification Payload Format
o ID Type (1 octet) - Specifies the type of Identification being
used.
o RESERVED - MUST be sent as zero; MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Identification Data (variable length) - Value, as indicated by
the Identification Type. The length of the Identification Data
is computed from the size in the ID payload header.
The payload types for the Identification Payload are thirty five (35)
for IDi and thirty six (36) for IDr.
The following table lists the assigned values for the Identification
Type field, followed by a description of the Identification Data
which follows:
ID Type Value
------- -----
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 55]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
RESERVED 0
ID_IPV4_ADDR 1
A single four (4) octet IPv4 address.
ID_FQDN 2
A fully-qualified domain name string. An example of a
ID_FQDN is, "example.com". The string MUST not contain any
terminators (e.g., NULL, CR, etc.).
ID_RFC822_ADDR 3
A fully-qualified RFC822 email address string, An example of
a ID_RFC822_ADDR is, "jsmith@example.com". The string MUST
not contain any terminators.
ID_IPV6_ADDR 5
A single sixteen (16) octet IPv6 address.
ID_DER_ASN1_DN 9
The binary DER encoding of an ASN.1 X.500 Distinguished Name
[X.501].
ID_DER_ASN1_GN 10
The binary DER encoding of an ASN.1 X.500 GeneralName
[X.509].
ID_KEY_ID 11
An opaque octet stream which may be used to pass vendor-
specific information necessary to do certain proprietary
types of identification.
Reserved to IANA 12-200
Reserved for private use 201-255
Two implementations will interoperate only if each can generate a
type of ID acceptable to the other. To assure maximum
interoperability, implementations MUST be configurable to send at
least one of ID_IPV4_ADDR, ID_FQDN, ID_RFC822_ADDR, or ID_KEY_ID, and
MUST be configurable to accept all of these types. Implementations
SHOULD be capable of generating and accepting all of these types.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 56]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
3.6 Certificate Payload
The Certificate Payload, denoted CERT in this memo, provides a means
to transport certificates or other authentication related information
via IKE. Certificate payloads SHOULD be included in an exchange if
certificates are available to the sender unless the peer has
indicated an ability to retrieve this information from elsewhere
using an HTTP_CERT_LOOKUP_SUPPORTED Notify payload. Note that the
term "Certificate Payload" is somewhat misleading, because not all
authentication mechanisms use certificates and data other than
certificates may be passed in this payload.
The Certificate Payload is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Cert Encoding ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ !
~ Certificate Data ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Certificate Payload Format
o Certificate Encoding (1 octet) - This field indicates the type
of certificate or certificate-related information contained
in the Certificate Data field.
Certificate Encoding Value
-------------------- -----
RESERVED 0
PKCS #7 wrapped X.509 certificate 1
PGP Certificate 2
DNS Signed Key 3
X.509 Certificate - Signature 4
Kerberos Token 6
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) 7
Authority Revocation List (ARL) 8
SPKI Certificate 9
X.509 Certificate - Attribute 10
Raw RSA Key 11
Hash and URL of X.509 certificate 12
Hash and URL of X.509 bundle 13
RESERVED to IANA 14 - 200
PRIVATE USE 201 - 255
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 57]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
o Certificate Data (variable length) - Actual encoding of
certificate data. The type of certificate is indicated
by the Certificate Encoding field.
The payload type for the Certificate Payload is thirty seven (37).
Specific syntax is for some of the certificate type codes above is
not defined in this document. The types whose syntax is defined in
this document are:
X.509 Certificate - Signature (4) contains a BER encoded X.509
certificate whose public key is used to validate the sender's AUTH
payload.
Certificate Revocation List (7) contains a BER encoded X.509
certificate revocation list.
Raw RSA Key (11) contains a PKCS #1 encoded RSA key.
Hash and URL encodings (12-13) allow IKE messages to remain short
by replacing long data structures with a 20 octet SHA-1 hash of
the replaced value followed by a variable length URL that resolves
to the BER encoded data structure itself. This improves efficiency
when the endpoints have certificate data cached and makes IKE less
subject to denial of service attacks that become easier to mount
when IKE messages are large enough to require IP fragmentation
[KPS03].
Use the following ASN.1 definition for an X.509 bundle:
CertBundle
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-cert-bundle(34) }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::
BEGIN
IMPORTS
Certificate, CertificateList
FROM PKIX1Explicit88
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
id-mod(0) id-pkix1-explicit(18) } ;
CertificateOrCRL ::= CHOICE {
cert [0] Certificate,
crl [1] CertificateList }
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 58]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
CertificateBundle ::= SEQUENCE OF CertificateOrCRL
END
Implementations MUST be capable of being configured to send and
accept up to four X.509 certificates in support of authentication.
Implementations SHOULD be capable of being configured to send and
accept Raw RSA keys and the first two Hash and URL formats. If
multiple certificates are sent, the first certificate MUST contain
the public key used to sign the AUTH payload. The other certificates
may be sent in any order.
3.7 Certificate Request Payload
The Certificate Request Payload, denoted CERTREQ in this memo,
provides a means to request preferred certificates via IKE and can
appear in the IKE_INIT_SA response and/or the IKE_AUTH request.
Certificate Request payloads MAY be included in an exchange when the
sender needs to get the certificate of the receiver. If multiple CAs
are trusted and the cert encoding does not allow a list, then
multiple Certificate Request payloads SHOULD be transmitted.
The Certificate Request Payload is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Cert Encoding ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ !
~ Certification Authority ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: Certificate Request Payload Format
o Certificate Encoding (1 octet) - Contains an encoding of the type
or format of certificate requested. Values are listed in section
3.6.
o Certification Authority (variable length) - Contains an encoding
of an acceptable certification authority for the type of
certificate requested.
The payload type for the Certificate Request Payload is thirty eight
(38).
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 59]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
The Certificate Encoding field has the same values as those defined
in section 3.6. The Certification Authority field contains an
indicator of trusted authorities for this certificate type. The
Certification Authority value is a concatenated list of SHA-1 hashes
of the public keys of trusted CAs. Each is encoded as the SHA-1 hash
of the Subject Public Key Info element (see section 4.1.2.7 of
[RFC3280]) from each Trust Anchor certificate. The twenty-octet
hashes are concatenated and included with no other formatting.
Note that the term "Certificate Request" is somewhat misleading, in
that values other than certificates are defined in a "Certificate"
payload and requests for those values can be present in a Certificate
Request Payload. The syntax of the Certificate Request payload in
such cases is not defined in this document.
The Certificate Request Payload is processed by inspecting the "Cert
Encoding" field to determine whether the processor has any
certificates of this type. If so the "Certification Authority" field
is inspected to determine if the processor has any certificates which
can be validated up to one of the specified certification
authorities. This can be a chain of certificates.
If an end-entity certificate exists which satisfies the criteria
specified in the CERTREQ, a certificate or certificate chain SHOULD
be sent back to the certificate requestor if:
- the recipient of the CERTREQ is configured to use certificate
authentication,
- is allowed to send a CERT payload,
- has matching CA trust policy governing the current negotiation,
and
- has at least one time-wise and usage appropriate end-entity
certificate chaining to a CA provided in the CERTREQ.
Certificate revocation checking must be considered during the
chaining process used to select a certificate. Note that even if two
peers are configured to use two different CAs, cross-certification
relationships should be supported by appropriate selection logic. The
intent is not to prevent communication through the strict adherence
of selection of a certificate based on CERTREQ, when an alternate
certificate could be selected by the sender which would still enable
the recipient to successfully validate and trust it through trust
conveyed by cross-certification, CRLs or other out-of-band configured
means. Thus the processing of a CERTREQ CA name should be seen as a
suggestion for a certificate to select, not a mandated one. If no
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 60]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
certificates exist then the CERTREQ is ignored. This is not an error
condition of the protocol. There may be cases where there is a
preferred CA sent in the CERTREQ, but an alternate might be
acceptable (perhaps after prompting a human operator)."
3.8 Authentication Payload
The Authentication Payload, denoted AUTH in this memo, contains data
used for authentication purposes. The syntax of the Authentication
data varies according to the Auth Method as specified below.
The Authentication Payload is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Auth Method ! RESERVED !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Authentication Data ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: Authentication Payload Format
o Auth Method (1 octet) - Specifies the method of authentication
used. Values defined are:
RSA Digital Signature (1) - Computed as specified in section
2.15 using an RSA private key over a PKCS#1 padded hash.
Shared Key Message Integrity Code (2) - Computed as specified in
section 2.15 using the shared key associated with the identity
in the ID payload and the negotiated prf function
DSS Digital Signature (3) - Computed as specified in section
2.15 using a DSS private key over a SHA-1 hash.
The values 0 and 4-200 are reserved to IANA. The values 201-255
are available for private use.
o Authentication Data (variable length) - see section 2.15.
The payload type for the Authentication Payload is thirty nine (39).
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 61]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
3.9 Nonce Payload
The Nonce Payload, denoted Ni and Nr in this memo for the Initiator's
and Responder's nonce respectively, contains random data used to
guarantee liveness during an exchange and protect against replay
attacks.
The Nonce Payload is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Nonce Data ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Nonce Payload Format
o Nonce Data (variable length) - Contains the random data generated
by the transmitting entity.
The payload type for the Nonce Payload is forty (40).
The size of a Nonce MUST be between 16 and 256 octets inclusive.
Nonce values MUST NOT be reused.
3.10 Notify Payload
The Notify Payload, denoted N in this document, is used to transmit
informational data, such as error conditions and state transitions,
to an IKE peer. A Notify Payload may appear in a response message
(usually specifying why a request was rejected), in an INFORMATIONAL
Exchange (to report an error not in an IKE request), or in any other
message to indicate sender capabilities or to modify the meaning of
the request.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 62]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
The Notify Payload is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Protocol ID ! SPI Size ! Notify Message Type !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Security Parameter Index (SPI) ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Notification Data ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16: Notification Payload Format
o Protocol ID (1 octet) - If this notification concerns
an existing SA, this field indicates the type of that SA.
For IKE_SA notifications, this field MUST be one (1). For
notifications concerning IPsec SAs this field MUST contain
either (2) to indicate AH or (3) to indicate ESP. For
notifications which do not relate to an existing SA, this
field MUST be sent as zero and MUST be ignored on receipt.
All other values for this field are reserved to IANA for future
assignment.
o SPI Size (1 octet) - Length in octets of the SPI as defined by
the IPsec protocol ID or zero if no SPI is applicable. For a
notification concerning the IKE_SA, the SPI Size MUST be zero.
o Notify Message Type (2 octets) - Specifies the type of
notification message.
o SPI (variable length) - Security Parameter Index.
o Notification Data (variable length) - Informational or error data
transmitted in addition to the Notify Message Type. Values for
this field are type specific (see below).
The payload type for the Notification Payload is forty one (41).
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 63]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
3.10.1 Notify Message Types
Notification information can be error messages specifying why an SA
could not be established. It can also be status data that a process
managing an SA database wishes to communicate with a peer process.
The table below lists the Notification messages and their
corresponding values. The number of different error statuses was
greatly reduced from IKE V1 both for simplification and to avoid
giving configuration information to probers.
Types in the range 0 - 16383 are intended for reporting errors. An
implementation receiving a Notify payload with one of these types
that it does not recognize in a response MUST assume that the
corresponding request has failed entirely. Unrecognized error types
in a request and status types in a request or response MUST be
ignored except that they SHOULD be logged.
Notify payloads with status types MAY be added to any message and
MUST be ignored if not recognized. They are intended to indicate
capabilities, and as part of SA negotiation are used to negotiate
non-cryptographic parameters.
NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES Value
----------------------------- -----
UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_PAYLOAD 1
Sent if the payload has the "critical" bit set and the
payload type is not recognized. Notification Data contains
the one octet payload type.
INVALID_IKE_SPI 4
Indicates an IKE message was received with an unrecognized
destination SPI. This usually indicates that the recipient
has rebooted and forgotten the existence of an IKE_SA.
INVALID_MAJOR_VERSION 5
Indicates the recipient cannot handle the version of IKE
specified in the header. The closest version number that the
recipient can support will be in the reply header.
INVALID_SYNTAX 7
Indicates the IKE message was received was invalid because
some type, length, or value was out of range or because the
request was rejected for policy reasons. To avoid a denial
of service attack using forged messages, this status may
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 64]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
only be returned for and in an encrypted packet if the
message ID and cryptographic checksum were valid. To avoid
leaking information to someone probing a node, this status
MUST be sent in response to any error not covered by one of
the other status types. To aid debugging, more detailed
error information SHOULD be written to a console or log.
INVALID_MESSAGE_ID 9
Sent when an IKE message ID outside the supported window is
received. This Notify MUST NOT be sent in a response; the
invalid request MUST NOT be acknowledged. Instead, inform
the other side by initiating an INFORMATIONAL exchange with
Notification data containing the four octet invalid message
ID. Sending this notification is optional and notifications
of this type MUST be rate limited.
INVALID_SPI 11
MAY be sent in an IKE INFORMATIONAL Exchange when a node
receives an ESP or AH packet with an invalid SPI. The
Notification Data contains the SPI of the invalid packet.
This usually indicates a node has rebooted and forgotten an
SA. If this Informational Message is sent outside the
context of an IKE_SA, it should only be used by the
recipient as a "hint" that something might be wrong (because
it could easily be forged).
NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN 14
None of the proposed crypto suites was acceptable.
INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD 17
The D-H Group # field in the KE payload is not the group #
selected by the responder for this exchange. There are two
octets of data associated with this notification: the
accepted D-H Group # in big endian order.
AUTHENTICATION_FAILED 24
Sent in the response to an IKE_AUTH message when for some
reason the authentication failed. There is no associated
data.
SINGLE_PAIR_REQUIRED 34
This error indicates that a CREATE_CHILD_SA request is
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 65]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
unacceptable because its sender is only willing to accept
traffic selectors specifying a single pair of addresses.
The requestor is expected to respond by requesting an SA for
only the specific traffic he is trying to forward.
NO_ADDITIONAL_SAS 35
This error indicates that a CREATE_CHILD_SA request is
unacceptable because the Responder is unwilling to accept
any more CHILD_SAs on this IKE_SA. Some minimal
implementations may only accept a single CHILD_SA setup in
the context of an initial IKE exchange and reject any
subsequent attempts to add more.
INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE 36
Indicates an error assigning an internal address (i.e.,
INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS or INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS) during the
processing of a Configuration Payload by a Responder. If
this error is generated within an IKE_AUTH exchange no
CHILD_SA will be created.
FAILED_CP_REQUIRED 37
Sent by responder in the case where CP(CFG_REQUEST) was
expected but not received, and so is a conflict with locally
configured policy. There is no associated data.
TS_UNACCEPTABLE 38
Indicates that none of the addresses/protocols/ports in the
supplied traffic selectors is acceptable.
INVALID_SELECTORS 39
MAY be sent in an IKE INFORMATIONAL Exchange when a node
receives an ESP or AH packet whose selectors do not match
those of the SA on which it was delivered (and which caused
the packet to be dropped). The Notification Data contains
the start of the offending packet (as in ICMP messages) and
the SPI field of the notification is set to match the SPI of
the IPsec SA.
RESERVED TO IANA - Error types 39 - 8191
Private Use - Errors 8192 - 16383
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 66]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Value
------------------------------ -----
INITIAL_CONTACT 16384
This notification asserts that this IKE_SA is the only
IKE_SA currently active between the authenticated
identities. It MAY be sent when an IKE_SA is established
after a crash, and the recipient MAY use this information to
delete any other IKE_SAs it has to the same authenticated
identity without waiting for a timeout. This notification
MUST NOT be sent by an entity that may be replicated (e.g.,
a roaming user's credentials where the user is allowed to
connect to the corporate firewall from two remote systems at
the same time).
SET_WINDOW_SIZE 16385
This notification asserts that the sending endpoint is
capable of keeping state for multiple outstanding exchanges,
permitting the recipient to send multiple requests before
getting a response to the first. The data associated with a
SET_WINDOW_SIZE notification MUST be 4 octets long and
contain the big endian representation of the number of
messages the sender promises to keep. Window size is always
one until the initial exchanges complete.
ADDITIONAL_TS_POSSIBLE 16386
This notification asserts that the sending endpoint narrowed
the proposed traffic selectors but that other traffic
selectors would also have been acceptable, though only in a
separate SA (see section 2.9). There is no data associated
with this Notify type. It may only be sent as an additional
payload in a message including accepted TSs.
IPCOMP_SUPPORTED 16387
This notification may only be included in a message
containing an SA payload negotiating a CHILD_SA and
indicates a willingness by its sender to use IPComp on this
SA. The data associated with this notification includes a
two octet IPComp CPI followed by a one octet transform ID
optionally followed by attributes whose length and format is
defined by that transform ID. A message proposing an SA may
contain multiple IPCOMP_SUPPORTED notifications to indicate
multiple supported algorithms. A message accepting an SA may
contain at most one.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 67]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
The transform IDs currently defined are:
NAME NUMBER DEFINED IN
----------- ------ -----------
RESERVED 0
IPCOMP_OUI 1
IPCOMP_DEFLATE 2 RFC 2394
IPCOMP_LZS 3 RFC 2395
IPCOMP_LZJH 4 RFC 3051
values 5-240 are reserved to IANA. Values 241-255 are
for private use among mutually consenting parties.
NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP 16388
This notification is used by its recipient to determine
whether the source is behind a NAT box. The data associated
with this notification is a SHA-1 digest of the SPIs (in the
order they appear in the header), IP address and port on
which this packet was sent. There MAY be multiple Notify
payloads of this type in a message if the sender does not
know which of several network attachments will be used to
send the packet. The recipient of this notification MAY
compare the supplied value to a SHA-1 hash of the SPIs,
source IP address and port and if they don't match it SHOULD
enable NAT traversal (see section 2.23). Alternately, it
MAY reject the connection attempt if NAT traversal is not
supported.
NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP 16389
This notification is used by its recipient to determine
whether it is behind a NAT box. The data associated with
this notification is a SHA-1 digest of the SPIs (in the
order they appear in the header), IP address and port to
which this packet was sent. The recipient of this
notification MAY compare the supplied value to a hash of the
SPIs, destination IP address and port and if they don't
match it SHOULD invoke NAT traversal (see section 2.23). If
they don't match, it means that this end is behind a NAT and
this end SHOULD start sending keepalive packets as defined
in [Hutt04]. Alternately, it MAY reject the connection
attempt if NAT traversal is not supported.
COOKIE 16390
This notification MAY be included in an IKE_SA_INIT
response. It indicates that the request should be retried
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 68]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
with a copy of this notification as the first payload. This
notification MUST be included in an IKE_SA_INIT request
retry if a COOKIE notification was included in the initial
response. The data associated with this notification MUST
be between 1 and 64 octets in length (inclusive).
USE_TRANSPORT_MODE 16391
This notification MAY be included in a request message that
also includes an SA requesting a CHILD_SA. It requests that
the CHILD_SA use transport mode rather than tunnel mode for
the SA created. If the request is accepted, the response
MUST also include a notification of type USE_TRANSPORT_MODE.
If the responder declines the request, the CHILD_SA will be
established in tunnel mode. If this is unacceptable to the
initiator, the initiator MUST delete the SA. Note: except
when using this option to negotiate transport mode, all
CHILD_SAs will use tunnel mode.
Note: The ECN decapsulation modifications specified in
[RFC2401bis] MUST be performed for every tunnel mode SA
created by IKEv2.
HTTP_CERT_LOOKUP_SUPPORTED 16392
This notification MAY be included in any message that can
include a CERTREQ payload and indicates that the sender is
capable of looking up certificates based on an HTTP-based
URL (and hence presumably would prefer to receive
certificate specifications in that format).
REKEY_SA 16393
This notification MUST be included in a CREATE_CHILD_SA
exchange if the purpose of the exchange is to replace an
existing ESP or AH SA. The SPI field identifies the SA being
rekeyed. There is no data.
ESP_TFC_PADDING_NOT_SUPPORTED 16394
This notification asserts that the sending endpoint will NOT
accept packets that contain Flow Confidentiality (TFC)
padding.
NON_FIRST_FRAGMENTS_ALSO 16395
Used for fragmentation control. See [2401bis] for
explanation.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 69]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
RESERVED TO IANA - STATUS TYPES 16396 - 40959
Private Use - STATUS TYPES 40960 - 65535
3.11 Delete Payload
The Delete Payload, denoted D in this memo, contains a protocol
specific security association identifier that the sender has removed
from its security association database and is, therefore, no longer
valid. Figure 17 shows the format of the Delete Payload. It is
possible to send multiple SPIs in a Delete payload, however, each SPI
MUST be for the same protocol. Mixing of protocol identifiers MUST
NOT be performed in a the Delete payload. It is permitted, however,
to include multiple Delete payloads in a single INFORMATIONAL
Exchange where each Delete payload lists SPIs for a different
protocol.
Deletion of the IKE_SA is indicated by a protocol ID of 1 (IKE) but
no SPIs. Deletion of a CHILD_SA, such as ESP or AH, will contain the
IPsec protocol ID of that protocol (2 for AH, 3 for ESP) and the SPI
is the SPI the sending endpoint would expect in inbound ESP or AH
packets.
The Delete Payload is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Protocol ID ! SPI Size ! # of SPIs !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Security Parameter Index(es) (SPI) ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 17: Delete Payload Format
o Protocol ID (1 octet) - Must be 1 for an IKE_SA, 2 for AH, or
3 for ESP.
o SPI Size (1 octet) - Length in octets of the SPI as defined by
the protocol ID. It MUST be zero for IKE (SPI is in message
header) or four for AH and ESP.
o # of SPIs (2 octets) - The number of SPIs contained in the Delete
payload. The size of each SPI is defined by the SPI Size field.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 70]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
o Security Parameter Index(es) (variable length) - Identifies the
specific security association(s) to delete. The length of this
field is determined by the SPI Size and # of SPIs fields.
The payload type for the Delete Payload is forty two (42).
3.12 Vendor ID Payload
The Vendor ID Payload contains a vendor defined constant. The
constant is used by vendors to identify and recognize remote
instances of their implementations. This mechanism allows a vendor
to experiment with new features while maintaining backwards
compatibility.
A Vendor ID payload MAY announce that the sender is capable to
accepting certain extensions to the protocol, or it MAY simply
identify the implementation as an aid in debugging. A Vendor ID
payload MUST NOT change the interpretation of any information defined
in this specification (i.e., it MUST be non-critical). Multiple
Vendor ID payloads MAY be sent. An implementation is NOT REQUIRED to
send any Vendor ID payload at all.
A Vendor ID payload may be sent as part of any message. Reception of
a familiar Vendor ID payload allows an implementation to make use of
Private USE numbers described throughout this memo-- private
payloads, private exchanges, private notifications, etc. Unfamiliar
Vendor IDs MUST be ignored.
Writers of Internet-Drafts who wish to extend this protocol MUST
define a Vendor ID payload to announce the ability to implement the
extension in the Internet-Draft. It is expected that Internet-Drafts
which gain acceptance and are standardized will be given "magic
numbers" out of the Future Use range by IANA and the requirement to
use a Vendor ID will go away.
The Vendor ID Payload fields are defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Vendor ID (VID) ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 18: Vendor ID Payload Format
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 71]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
o Vendor ID (variable length) - It is the responsibility of
the person choosing the Vendor ID to assure its uniqueness
in spite of the absence of any central registry for IDs.
Good practice is to include a company name, a person name
or some such. If you want to show off, you might include
the latitude and longitude and time where you were when
you chose the ID and some random input. A message digest
of a long unique string is preferable to the long unique
string itself.
The payload type for the Vendor ID Payload is forty three (43).
3.13 Traffic Selector Payload
The Traffic Selector Payload, denoted TS in this memo, allows peers
to identify packet flows for processing by IPsec security services.
The Traffic Selector Payload consists of the IKE generic payload
header followed by individual traffic selectors as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Number of TSs ! RESERVED !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ <Traffic Selectors> ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 19: Traffic Selectors Payload Format
o Number of TSs (1 octet) - Number of traffic selectors
being provided.
o RESERVED - This field MUST be sent as zero and MUST be ignored
on receipt.
o Traffic Selectors (variable length) - one or more individual
traffic selectors.
The length of the Traffic Selector payload includes the TS header and
all the traffic selectors.
The payload type for the Traffic Selector payload is forty four (44)
for addresses at the initiator's end of the SA and forty five (45)
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 72]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
for addresses at the responder's end.
3.13.1 Traffic Selector
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! TS Type !IP Protocol ID*| Selector Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start Port* | End Port* |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Starting Address* ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Ending Address* ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 20: Traffic Selector
*Note: all fields other than TS Type and Selector Length depend on
the TS Type. The fields shown are for TS Types 7 and 8, the only two
values currently defined.
o TS Type (one octet) - Specifies the type of traffic selector.
o IP protocol ID (1 octet) - Value specifying an associated IP
protocol ID (e.g., UDP/TCP/ICMP). A value of zero means that
the protocol ID is not relevant to this traffic selector--
the SA can carry all protocols.
o Selector Length - Specifies the length of this Traffic
Selector Substructure including the header.
o Start Port (2 octets) - Value specifying the smallest port
number allowed by this Traffic Selector. For protocols for
which port is undefined, or if all ports are allowed,
this field MUST be zero. For the
ICMP protocol, the two one octet fields Type and Code are
treated as a single 16 bit integer (with Type in the most
significant eight bits and Code in the least significant
eight bits) port number for the purposes of filtering based
on this field.
o End Port (2 octets) - Value specifying the largest port
number allowed by this Traffic Selector. For protocols for
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 73]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
which port is undefined, or if all ports are allowed,
this field MUST be 65535. For the
ICMP protocol, the two one octet fields Type and Code are
treated as a single 16 bit integer (with Type in the most
significant eight bits and Code in the least significant
eight bits) port number for the purposed of filtering based
on this field.
o Starting Address - The smallest address included in this
Traffic Selector (length determined by TS type).
o Ending Address - The largest address included in this
Traffic Selector (length determined by TS type).
Systems that are complying with [RFC2401bis] that wish to indicate
"ANY" ports MUST set the start port to 0 and the end port to 65535;
note that according to [RFC2401bis], "ANY" includes "OPAQUE". Systems
working with [RFC2401bis] that wish to indicate "OPAQUE" ports, but
not "ANY" ports, MUST set the start port to 65535 and the end port to
0.
The following table lists the assigned values for the Traffic
Selector Type field and the corresponding Address Selector Data.
TS Type Value
------- -----
RESERVED 0-6
TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE 7
A range of IPv4 addresses, represented by two four (4) octet
values. The first value is the beginning IPv4 address
(inclusive) and the second value is the ending IPv4 address
(inclusive). All addresses falling between the two specified
addresses are considered to be within the list.
TS_IPV6_ADDR_RANGE 8
A range of IPv6 addresses, represented by two sixteen (16)
octet values. The first value is the beginning IPv6 address
(inclusive) and the second value is the ending IPv6 address
(inclusive). All addresses falling between the two specified
addresses are considered to be within the list.
RESERVED TO IANA 9-240
PRIVATE USE 241-255
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 74]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
3.14 Encrypted Payload
The Encrypted Payload, denoted SK{...} in this memo, contains other
payloads in encrypted form. The Encrypted Payload, if present in a
message, MUST be the last payload in the message. Often, it is the
only payload in the message.
The algorithms for encryption and integrity protection are negotiated
during IKE_SA setup, and the keys are computed as specified in
sections 2.14 and 2.18.
The encryption and integrity protection algorithms are modeled after
the ESP algorithms described in RFCs 2104, 2406, 2451. This document
completely specifies the cryptographic processing of IKE data, but
those documents should be consulted for design rationale. We assume a
block cipher with a fixed block size and an integrity check algorithm
that computes a fixed length checksum over a variable size message.
The payload type for an Encrypted payload is forty six (46). The
Encrypted Payload consists of the IKE generic payload header followed
by individual fields as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Initialization Vector !
! (length is block size for encryption algorithm) !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Encrypted IKE Payloads !
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! ! Padding (0-255 octets) !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! ! Pad Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Integrity Checksum Data ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 21: Encrypted Payload Format
o Next Payload - The payload type of the first embedded payload.
Note that this is an exception in the standard header format,
since the Encrypted payload is the last payload in the
message and therefore the Next Payload field would normally
be zero. But because the content of this payload is embedded
payloads and there was no natural place to put the type of
the first one, that type is placed here.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 75]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
o Payload Length - Includes the lengths of the header, IV,
Encrypted IKE Payloads, Padding, Pad Length and Integrity
Checksum Data.
o Initialization Vector - A randomly chosen value whose length
is equal to the block length of the underlying encryption
algorithm. Recipients MUST accept any value. Senders SHOULD
either pick this value pseudo-randomly and independently for
each message or use the final ciphertext block of the previous
message sent. Senders MUST NOT use the same value for each
message, use a sequence of values with low hamming distance
(e.g., a sequence number), or use ciphertext from a received
message.
o IKE Payloads are as specified earlier in this section. This
field is encrypted with the negotiated cipher.
o Padding MAY contain any value chosen by the sender, and MUST
have a length that makes the combination of the Payloads, the
Padding, and the Pad Length to be a multiple of the encryption
block size. This field is encrypted with the negotiated
cipher.
o Pad Length is the length of the Padding field. The sender
SHOULD set the Pad Length to the minimum value that makes
the combination of the Payloads, the Padding, and the Pad
Length a multiple of the block size, but the recipient MUST
accept any length that results in proper alignment. This
field is encrypted with the negotiated cipher.
o Integrity Checksum Data is the cryptographic checksum of
the entire message starting with the Fixed IKE Header
through the Pad Length. The checksum MUST be computed over
the encrypted message. Its length is determined by the
integrity algorithm negotiated.
3.15 Configuration Payload
The Configuration payload, denoted CP in this document, is used to
exchange configuration information between IKE peers. The exchange is
for an IRAC to request an internal IP address from an IRAS and to
exchange other information of the sort that one would acquire with
DHCP if the IRAC were directly connected to a LAN.
Configuration payloads are of type CFG_REQUEST/CFG_REPLY or
CFG_SET/CFG_ACK (see CFG Type in the payload description below).
CFG_REQUEST and CFG_SET payloads may optionally be added to any IKE
request. The IKE response MUST include either a corresponding
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 76]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
CFG_REPLY or CFG_ACK or a Notify payload with an error type
indicating why the request could not be honored. An exception is that
a minimal implementation MAY ignore all CFG_REQUEST and CFG_SET
payloads, so a response message without a corresponding CFG_REPLY or
CFG_ACK MUST be accepted as an indication that the request was not
supported.
"CFG_REQUEST/CFG_REPLY" allows an IKE endpoint to request information
from its peer. If an attribute in the CFG_REQUEST Configuration
Payload is not zero length it is taken as a suggestion for that
attribute. The CFG_REPLY Configuration Payload MAY return that
value, or a new one. It MAY also add new attributes and not include
some requested ones. Requestors MUST ignore returned attributes that
they do not recognize.
Some attributes MAY be multi-valued, in which case multiple attribute
values of the same type are sent and/or returned. Generally, all
values of an attribute are returned when the attribute is requested.
For some attributes (in this version of the specification only
internal addresses), multiple requests indicates a request that
multiple values be assigned. For these attributes, the number of
values returned SHOULD NOT exceed the number requested.
If the data type requested in a CFG_REQUEST is not recognized or not
supported, the responder MUST NOT return an error type but rather
MUST either send a CFG_REPLY which MAY be empty or a reply not
containing a CFG_REPLY payload at all. Error returns are reserved for
cases where the request is recognized but cannot be performed as
requested or the request is badly formatted.
"CFG_SET/CFG_ACK" allows an IKE endpoint to push configuration data
to its peer. In this case the CFG_SET Configuration Payload contains
attributes the initiator wants its peer to alter. The responder MUST
return a Configuration Payload if it accepted any of the
configuration data and it MUST contain the attributes that the
responder accepted with zero length data. Those attributes that it
did not accept MUST NOT be in the CFG_ACK Configuration Payload. If
no attributes were accepted, the responder MUST return either an
empty CFG_ACK payload or a response message without a CFG_ACK
payload. There are currently no defined uses for the CFG_SET/CFG_ACK
exchange, though they may be used in connection with extensions based
on Vendor IDs. An minimal implementation of this specification MAY
ignore CFG_SET payloads.
Extensions via the CP payload SHOULD NOT be used for general purpose
management. Its main intent is to provide a bootstrap mechanism to
exchange information within IPsec from IRAS to IRAC. While it MAY be
useful to use such a method to exchange information between some
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 77]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Security Gateways (SGW) or small networks, existing management
protocols such as DHCP [DHCP], RADIUS [RADIUS], SNMP or LDAP [LDAP]
should be preferred for enterprise management as well as subsequent
information exchanges.
The Configuration Payload is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! CFG Type ! RESERVED !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Configuration Attributes ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 22: Configuration Payload Format
The payload type for the Configuration Payload is forty seven (47).
o CFG Type (1 octet) - The type of exchange represented by the
Configuration Attributes.
CFG Type Value
=========== ====
RESERVED 0
CFG_REQUEST 1
CFG_REPLY 2
CFG_SET 3
CFG_ACK 4
values 5-127 are reserved to IANA. Values 128-255 are for private
use among mutually consenting parties.
o RESERVED (3 octets) - MUST be sent as zero; MUST be ignored on
receipt.
o Configuration Attributes (variable length) - These are type
length values specific to the Configuration Payload and are
defined below. There may be zero or more Configuration
Attributes in this payload.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 78]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
3.15.1 Configuration Attributes
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!R| Attribute Type ! Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Value ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 23: Configuration Attribute Format
o Reserved (1 bit) - This bit MUST be set to zero and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
o Attribute Type (7 bits) - A unique identifier for each of the
Configuration Attribute Types.
o Length (2 octets) - Length in octets of Value.
o Value (0 or more octets) - The variable length value of this
Configuration Attribute.
The following attribute types have been defined:
Multi-
Attribute Type Value Valued Length
======================= ===== ====== =================
RESERVED 0
INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS 1 YES* 0 or 4 octets
INTERNAL_IP4_NETMASK 2 NO 0 or 4 octets
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS 3 YES 0 or 4 octets
INTERNAL_IP4_NBNS 4 YES 0 or 4 octets
INTERNAL_ADDRESS_EXPIRY 5 NO 0 or 4 octets
INTERNAL_IP4_DHCP 6 YES 0 or 4 octets
APPLICATION_VERSION 7 NO 0 or more
INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS 8 YES* 0 or 17 octets
RESERVED 9
INTERNAL_IP6_DNS 10 YES 0 or 16 octets
INTERNAL_IP6_NBNS 11 YES 0 or 16 octets
INTERNAL_IP6_DHCP 12 YES 0 or 16 octets
INTERNAL_IP4_SUBNET 13 NO 0 or 8 octets
SUPPORTED_ATTRIBUTES 14 NO Multiple of 2
INTERNAL_IP6_SUBNET 15 NO 17 octets
* These attributes may be multi-valued on return only if
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 79]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
multiple values were requested.
Types 16-16383 are reserved to IANA. Values 16384-32767 are for
private use among mutually consenting parties.
o INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS, INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS - An address on the
internal network, sometimes called a red node address or
private address and MAY be a private address on the Internet.
Multiple internal addresses MAY be requested by requesting
multiple internal address attributes. The responder MAY only
send up to the number of addresses requested. The
INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS is made up of two fields; the first
being a 16 octet IPv6 address and the second being a one octet
prefix-length as defined in [ADDRIPV6].
The requested address is valid until the expiry time defined
with the INTERNAL_ADDRESS EXPIRY attribute or there are no
IKE_SAs between the peers.
o INTERNAL_IP4_NETMASK - The internal network's netmask. Only
one netmask is allowed in the request and reply messages
(e.g., 255.255.255.0) and it MUST be used only with an
INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS attribute.
o INTERNAL_IP4_DNS, INTERNAL_IP6_DNS - Specifies an address of a
DNS server within the network. Multiple DNS servers MAY be
requested. The responder MAY respond with zero or more DNS
server attributes.
o INTERNAL_IP4_NBNS, INTERNAL_IP6_NBNS - Specifies an address of
a NetBios Name Server (WINS) within the network. Multiple NBNS
servers MAY be requested. The responder MAY respond with zero
or more NBNS server attributes.
o INTERNAL_ADDRESS_EXPIRY - Specifies the number of seconds that
the host can use the internal IP address. The host MUST renew
the IP address before this expiry time. Only one of these
attributes MAY be present in the reply.
o INTERNAL_IP4_DHCP, INTERNAL_IP6_DHCP - Instructs the host to
send any internal DHCP requests to the address contained within
the attribute. Multiple DHCP servers MAY be requested. The
responder MAY respond with zero or more DHCP server attributes.
o APPLICATION_VERSION - The version or application information of
the IPsec host. This is a string of printable ASCII characters
that is NOT null terminated.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 80]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
o INTERNAL_IP4_SUBNET - The protected sub-networks that this
edge-device protects. This attribute is made up of two fields;
the first being an IP address and the second being a netmask.
Multiple sub-networks MAY be requested. The responder MAY
respond with zero or more sub-network attributes.
o SUPPORTED_ATTRIBUTES - When used within a Request, this
attribute MUST be zero length and specifies a query to the
responder to reply back with all of the attributes that it
supports. The response contains an attribute that contains a
set of attribute identifiers each in 2 octets. The length
divided by 2 (octets) would state the number of supported
attributes contained in the response.
o INTERNAL_IP6_SUBNET - The protected sub-networks that this
edge-device protects. This attribute is made up of two fields;
the first being a 16 octet IPv6 address the second being a one
octet prefix-length as defined in [ADDRIPV6]. Multiple
sub-networks MAY be requested. The responder MAY respond with
zero or more sub-network attributes.
Note that no recommendations are made in this document how an
implementation actually figures out what information to send in a
reply. i.e., we do not recommend any specific method of an IRAS
determining which DNS server should be returned to a requesting
IRAC.
3.16 Extended Authentication Protocol (EAP) Payload
The Extended Authentication Protocol Payload, denoted EAP in this
memo, allows IKE_SAs to be authenticated using the protocol defined
in RFC 2284 [EAP] and subsequent extensions to that protocol. The
full set of acceptable values for the payload are defined elsewhere,
but a short summary of RFC 2284 is included here to make this
document stand alone in the common cases.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Next Payload !C! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ EAP Message ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 24: EAP Payload Format
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 81]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
The payload type for an EAP Payload is forty eight (48).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Code ! Identifier ! Length !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Type ! Type_Data...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Figure 25: EAP Message Format
o Code (one octet) indicates whether this message is a
Request (1), Response (2), Success (3), or Failure (4).
o Identifier (one octet) is used in PPP to distinguish replayed
messages from repeated ones. Since in IKE, EAP runs over a
reliable protocol, it serves no function here. In a response
message this octet MUST be set to match the identifier in the
corresponding request. In other messages, this field MAY
be set to any value.
o Length (two octets) is the length of the EAP message and MUST
be four less than the Payload Length of the encapsulating
payload.
o Type (one octet) is present only if the Code field is Request
(1) or Response (2). For other codes, the EAP message length
MUST be four octets and the Type and Type_Data fields MUST NOT
be present. In a Request (1) message, Type indicates the
data being requested. In a Response (2) message, Type MUST
either be NAC or match the type of the data requested. The
following types are defined in RFC 2284:
1 Identity
2 Notification
3 NAK (Response Only)
4 MD5-Challenge
5 One-Time Password (OTP)
6 Generic Token Card
o Type_Data (Variable Length) contains data depending on the Code
and Type. In Requests other than MD5-Challenge, this field
contains a prompt to be displayed to a human user. For NAK, it
contains one octet suggesting the type of authentication the
Initiator would prefer to use. For most other responses, it
contains the authentication code typed by the human user.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 82]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Note that since IKE passes an indication of initiator identity in
message 3 of the protocol, EAP based prompts for Identity SHOULD NOT
be used.
4 Conformance Requirements
In order to assure that all implementations of IKEv2 can
interoperate, there are MUST support requirements in addition to
those listed elsewhere. Of course, IKEv2 is a security protocol, and
one of its major functions is to only allow authorized parties to
successfully complete establishment of SAs. So a particular
implementation may be configured with any of a number of restrictions
concerning algorithms and trusted authorities that will prevent
universal interoperability.
IKEv2 is designed to permit minimal implementations that can
interoperate with all compliant implementations. There are a series
of optional features that can easily be ignored by a particular
implementation if it does not support that feature. Those features
include:
Ability to negotiate SAs through a NAT and tunnel the resulting
ESP SA over UDP.
Ability to request (and respond to a request for) a temporary IP
address on the remote end of a tunnel.
Ability to support various types of legacy authentication.
Ability to support window sizes greater than one.
Ability to establish multiple ESP and/or AH SAs within a single
IKE_SA.
Ability to rekey SAs.
To assure interoperability, all implementations MUST be capable of
parsing all payload types (if only to skip over them) and to ignore
payload types that it does not support unless the critical bit is set
in the payload header. If the critical bit is set in an unsupported
payload header, all implementations MUST reject the messages
containing those payloads.
Every implementation MUST be capable of doing four message
IKE_SA_INIT and IKE_AUTH exchanges establishing two SAs (one for IKE,
one for ESP and/or AH). Implementations MAY be initiate-only or
respond-only if appropriate for their platform. Every implementation
MUST be capable of responding to an INFORMATIONAL exchange, but a
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 83]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
minimal implementation MAY respond to any INFORMATIONAL message with
an empty INFORMATIONAL reply. A minimal implementation MAY support
the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange only in so far as to recognize requests
and reject them with a Notify payload of type NO_ADDITIONAL_SAS. A
minimal implementation need not be able to initiate CREATE_CHILD_SA
or INFORMATIONAL exchanges. When an SA expires (based on locally
configured values of either lifetime or octets passed), and
implementation MAY either try to renew it with a CREATE_CHILD_SA
exchange or it MAY delete (close) the old SA and create a new one. If
the responder rejects the CREATE_CHILD_SA request with a
NO_ADDITIONAL_SAS notification, the implementation MUST be capable of
instead closing the old SA and creating a new one.
Implementations are not required to support requesting temporary IP
addresses or responding to such requests. If an implementation does
support issuing such requests, it MUST include a CP payload in
message 3 containing at least a field of type INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS or
INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS. All other fields are optional. If an
implementation supports responding to such requests, it MUST parse
the CP payload of type CFG_REQUEST in message 3 and recognize a field
of type INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS or INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS. If it supports
leasing an address of the appropriate type, it MUST return a CP
payload of type CFG_REPLY containing an address of the requested
type. The responder SHOULD include all of the other related
attributes if it has them.
A minimal IPv4 responder implementation will ignore the contents of
the CP payload except to determine that it includes an
INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS attribute and will respond with the address and
other related attributes regardless of whether the initiator
requested them.
A minimal IPv4 initiator will generate a CP payload containing only
an INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS attribute and will parse the response
ignoring attributes it does not know how to use. The only attribute
it MUST be able to process is INTERNAL_ADDRESS_EXPIRY, which it must
use to bound the lifetime of the SA unless it successfully renews the
lease before it expires. Minimal initiators need not be able to
request lease renewals and minimal responders need not respond to
them.
For an implementation to be called conforming to this specification,
it MUST be possible to configure it to accept the following:
PKIX Certificates containing and signed by RSA keys of size 1024 or
2048 bits, where the ID passed is any of ID_KEY_ID, ID_FQDN,
ID_RFC822_ADDR, or ID_DER_ASN1_DN.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 84]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Shared key authentication where the ID passes is any of ID_KEY_ID,
ID_FQDN, or ID_RFC822_ADDR.
Authentication where the responder is authenticated using PKIX
Certificates and the initiator is authenticated using shared key
authentication.
5 Security Considerations
While this protocol is designed to minimize disclosure of
configuration information to unauthenticated peers, some such
disclosure is unavoidable. One peer or the other must identify
itself first and prove its identity first. To avoid probing, the
initiator of an exchange is required to identify itself first, and
usually is required to authenticate itself first. The initiator can,
however, learn that the responder supports IKE and what cryptographic
protocols it supports. The responder (or someone impersonating the
responder) can probe the initiator not only for its identity, but
using CERTREQ payloads may be able to determine what certificates the
initiator is willing to use.
Use of EAP authentication changes the probing possibilities somewhat.
When EAP authentication is used, the responder proves its identity
before the initiator does, so an initiator that knew the name of a
valid initiator could probe the responder for both its name and
certificates.
Repeated rekeying using CREATE_CHILD_SA without PFS leaves all SAs
vulnerable to cryptanalysis of a single key or overrun of either
endpoint. Implementers should take note of this fact and set a limit
on CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges between exponentiations. This memo does
not prescribe such a limit.
The strength of a key derived from a Diffie-Hellman exchange using
any of the groups defined here depends on the inherent strength of
the group, the size of the exponent used, and the entropy provided by
the random number generator used. Due to these inputs it is difficult
to determine the strength of a key for any of the defined groups.
Diffie-Hellman group number two, when used with a strong random
number generator and an exponent no less than 200 bits, is common for
use with 3DES. Group five provides greater security than group two.
Group one is for historic purposes only and does not provide
sufficient strength except for use with DES, which is also for
historic use only. Implementations should make note of these
estimates when establishing policy and negotiating security
parameters.
Note that these limitations are on the Diffie-Hellman groups
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 85]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
themselves. There is nothing in IKE which prohibits using stronger
groups nor is there anything which will dilute the strength obtained
from stronger groups (limited by the strength of the other algorithms
negotiated including the prf function). In fact, the extensible
framework of IKE encourages the definition of more groups; use of
elliptical curve groups may greatly increase strength using much
smaller numbers.
It is assumed that all Diffie-Hellman exponents are erased from
memory after use. In particular, these exponents MUST NOT be derived
from long-lived secrets like the seed to a pseudo-random generator
that is not erased after use.
The strength of all keys are limited by the size of the output of the
negotiated prf function. For this reason, a prf function whose output
is less than 128 bits (e.g., 3DES-CBC) MUST NOT be used with this
protocol.
The security of this protocol is critically dependent on the
randomness of the randomly chosen parameters. These should be
generated by a strong random or properly seeded pseudo-random source
(see [RFC1750]). Implementers should take care to ensure that use of
random numbers for both keys and nonces is engineered in a fashion
that does not undermine the security of the keys.
For information on the rationale of many of the cryptographic design
choices in this protocol, see [SIGMA].
When using pre-shared keys, a critical consideration is how to assure
the randomness of these secrets. The strongest practice is to ensure
that any pre-shared key contain as much randomness as the strongest
key being negotiated. Deriving a shared secret from a password, name,
or other low entropy source is not secure. These sources are subject
to dictionary and social engineering attacks, among others.
The NAT_DETECTION_*_IP notifications contain a hash of the addresses
and ports in an attempt to hide internal IP addresses behind a NAT.
Since the IPv4 address space is only 32 bits, and it is usually very
sparse, it would be possible for an attacker to find out the internal
address used behind the NAT box by trying all possible IP-addresses
and trying to find the matching hash. The port numbers are normally
fixed to 500, and the SPIs can be extracted from the packet. This
reduces the number of hash calculations to 2^32. With an educated
guess of the use of private address space, the number of hash
calculations is much smaller. Designers should therefore not assume
that use of IKE will not leak internal address information.
When using an EAP authentication method that does not generate a
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 86]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
shared key for protecting a subsequent AUTH payload, certain man-in-
the-middle and server impersonation attacks are possible [EAPMITM].
These vulnerabilities occur when EAP is also used in protocols which
are not protected with a secure tunnel. Since EAP is a general-
purpose authentication protocol, which is often used to provide
single-signon facilities, a deployed IPsec solution which relies on
an EAP authentication method that does not generate a shared key
(also known as a non-key-generating EAP method) can become
compromised due to the deployment of an entirely unrelated
application that also happens to use the same non-key-generating EAP
method, but in an unprotected fashion. Note that this vulnerability
is not limited to just EAP, but can occur in other scenarios where an
authentication infrastructure is reused. For example, if the EAP
mechanism used by IKEv2 utilizes a token authenticator, a man-in-the-
middle attacker could impersonate the web server, intercept the token
authentication exchange, and use it to initiate an IKEv2 connection.
For this reason, use of non-key-generating EAP methods SHOULD be
avoided where possible. Where they are used, it is extremely
important that all usages of these EAP methods SHOULD utilize a
protected tunnel, where the initiator validates the responder's
certificate before initiating the EAP exchange. Implementers SHOULD
describe the vulnerabilities of using non-key-generating EAP methods
in the documentation of their implementations so that the
administrators deploying IPsec solutions are aware of these dangers.
An implementation using EAP MUST also use a public key based
authentication of the server to the client before the EAP exchange
begins, even if the EAP method offers mutual authentication. This
avoids having additional IKEv2 protocol variations and protects the
EAP data from active attackers.
6 IANA Considerations
This document defines a number of new field types and values where
future assignments will be managed by the IANA.
The following registries should be created:
IKEv2 Exchange Types
IKEv2 Payload Types
IKEv2 Transform Types
IKEv2 Transform Attribute Types
IKEv2 Encryption Transform IDs
IKEv2 Pseudo-random Function Transform IDs
IKEv2 Integrity Algorithm Transform IDs
IKEv2 Diffie-Hellman, ECP and EC2N Transform IDs
IKEv2 Identification Payload ID Types
IKEv2 Certification Encodings
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 87]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
IKEv2 Authentication Method
IKEv2 Notification Payload Types
IKEv2 Notification IPCOMP Transform IDs
IKEv2 Security Protocol Identifiers
IKEv2 Traffic Selector Types
IKEv2 Configuration Payload CFG Types
IKEv2 Configuration Payload Attribute Types
Note: when creating a new Transform Type, a new registry for it must
be created.
New allocations to any of those registries may be allocated by expert
review.
7 Acknowledgements
This document is a collaborative effort of the entire IPsec WG. If
there were no limit to the number of authors that could appear on an
RFC, the following, in alphabetical order, would have been listed:
Bill Aiello, Stephane Beaulieu, Steve Bellovin, Sara Bitan, Matt
Blaze, Ran Canetti, Darren Dukes, Dan Harkins, Paul Hoffman, J.
Ioannidis, Steve Kent, Angelos Keromytis, Tero Kivinen, Hugo
Krawczyk, Andrew Krywaniuk, Radia Perlman, O. Reingold, Michael
Richardson. Many other people contributed to the design. It is an
evolution of IKEv1, ISAKMP, and the IPsec DOI, each of which has its
own list of authors. Hugh Daniel suggested the feature of having the
initiator, in message 3, specify a name for the responder, and gave
the feature the cute name "You Tarzan, Me Jane". David Faucher and
Valery Smyzlov helped refine the design of the traffic selector
negotiation.
8 References
8.1 Normative References
[ADDGROUP] Kivinen, T., and Kojo, M., "More Modular Exponential
(MODP) Diffie-Hellman groups for Internet Key
Exchange (IKE)", RFC 3526, May 2003.
[ADDRIPV6] Hinden, R., and Deering, S.,
"Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing
Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
[Bra97] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[EAP] Blunk, L. and Vollbrecht, J., "PPP Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP), RFC 2284, March 1998.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 88]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
[ESPCBC] Pereira, R., Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.
[Hutt04] Huttunen, A. et. al., "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec
Packets", draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-08.txt, February
2004, work in progress.
[RFC2401bis] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture
for the Internet Protocol", un-issued Internet
Draft, work in progress.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and Black, D.,
"The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
to IP", RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3280] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., Solo, D., "Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280,
April 2002.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Submissions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
8.2 Informative References
[DES] ANSI X3.106, "American National Standard for Information
Systems-Data Link Encryption", American National Standards
Institute, 1983.
[DH] Diffie, W., and Hellman M., "New Directions in
Cryptography", IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, V.
IT-22, n. 6, June 1977.
[DHCP] R. Droms, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC2131
[DSS] NIST, "Digital Signature Standard", FIPS 186, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce, May, 1994.
[EAPMITM] Asokan, N., Nierni, V., and Nyberg, K., "Man-in-the-Middle
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 89]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
in Tunneled Authentication Protocols",
http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/163, November 2002.
[HC98] Harkins, D., Carrel, D., "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[IDEA] Lai, X., "On the Design and Security of Block Ciphers,"
ETH Series in Information Processing, v. 1, Konstanz:
Hartung-Gorre Verlag, 1992
[IKEv2IANA]Richardson, M., "Initial IANA registry contents",
draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-iana-00.txt, work in progress.
[IPCOMP] Shacham, A., Monsour, R., Pereira, R., and Thomas, M., "IP
Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)", RFC 3173,
September 2001.
[KPS03] Kaufman, C., Perlman, R., and Sommerfeld, B., "DoS
protection for UDP-based protocols", ACM Conference on
Computer and Communications Security, October 2003.
[Ker01] Keromytis, A., Sommerfeld, B., "The 'Suggested ID'
Extension for IKE", draft-keromytis-ike-id-00.txt, 2001
[KBC96] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
1997.
[LDAP] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille., "Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251
[MD5] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
April 1992.
[MSST98] Maughhan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner, J.
"Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol
(ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.
[Orm96] Orman, H., "The Oakley Key Determination Protocol", RFC
2412, November 1998.
[PFKEY] McDonald, D., Metz, C., and Phan, B., "PFKEY Key
Management API, Version 2", RFC 2367, July 1998.
[PKCS1] Kaliski, B., and J. Staddon, "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography
Specifications Version 2", September 1998.
[PK01] Perlman, R., and Kaufman, C., "Analysis of the IPsec key
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 90]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
exchange Standard", WET-ICE Security Conference, MIT,2001,
http://sec.femto.org/wetice-2001/papers/radia-paper.pdf.
[Pip98] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain Of
Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
[RADIUS] C. Rigney, A. Rubens, W. Simpson, S. Willens, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2138
[RFC1750] Eastlake, D., Crocker, S., and Schiller, J., "Randomness
Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, June 1996.
[RFC2401] Kent, S., and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for
the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and Black, D.,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.
and Weiss, W., "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2522] Karn, P., and Simpson, W., "Photuris: Session-Key
Management Protocol", RFC 2522, March 1999.
[RFC2775] Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775,
February 2000.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, October 2000.
[RFC3439] Bush, R. and D. Meyer, "Some Internet Architectural
Guidelines and Philosophy", RFC 3429, December 2002.
[RFC3715] Aboba, B and Dixon, W., "IPsec-Network Address
Translation (NAT) Compatibility Requirements",
RFC 3715, March 2004.
[RSA] Rivest, R., Shamir, A., and Adleman, L., "A Method for
Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key
Cryptosystems", Communications of the ACM, v. 21, n. 2,
February 1978.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 91]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
[SHA] NIST, "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS 180-1, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department
of Commerce, May 1994.
[SIGMA] Krawczyk, H., "SIGMA: the `SIGn-and-MAc' Approach to
Authenticated Diffie-Hellman and its Use in the IKE
Protocols", in Advances in Cryptography - CRYPTO 2003
Proceedings, LNCS 2729, Springer, 2003. Available at:
http://www.ee.technion.ac.il/~hugo/sigma.html
[SKEME] Krawczyk, H., "SKEME: A Versatile Secure Key Exchange
Mechanism for Internet", from IEEE Proceedings of the
1996 Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems
Security.
[X.501] ITU-T Recommendation X.501: Information Technology -
Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Models,
1993.
[X.509] ITU-T Recommendation X.509 (1997 E): Information
Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The
Directory: Authentication Framework, June 1997.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 92]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Appendix A: Summary of changes from IKEv1
The goals of this revision to IKE are:
1) To define the entire IKE protocol in a single document, replacing
RFCs 2407, 2408, and 2409 and incorporating subsequent changes to
support NAT Traversal, Extended Authentication, and Remote Address
acquisition.
2) To simplify IKE by replacing the eight different initial exchanges
with a single four message exchange (with changes in authentication
mechanisms affecting only a single AUTH payload rather than
restructuring the entire exchange);
3) To remove the Domain of Interpretation (DOI), Situation (SIT), and
Labeled Domain Identifier fields, and the Commit and Authentication
only bits;
4) To decrease IKE's latency in the common case by making the initial
exchange be 2 round trips (4 messages), and allowing the ability to
piggyback setup of a CHILD_SA on that exchange;
5) To replace the cryptographic syntax for protecting the IKE
messages themselves with one based closely on ESP to simplify
implementation and security analysis;
6) To reduce the number of possible error states by making the
protocol reliable (all messages are acknowledged) and sequenced. This
allows shortening CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges from 3 messages to 2;
7) To increase robustness by allowing the responder to not do
significant processing until it receives a message proving that the
initiator can receive messages at its claimed IP address, and not
commit any state to an exchange until the initiator can be
cryptographically authenticated;
8) To fix bugs such as the hash problem documented in [draft-ietf-
ipsec-ike-hash-revised-02.txt];
9) To specify Traffic Selectors in their own payloads type rather
than overloading ID payloads, and making more flexible the Traffic
Selectors that may be specified;
10) To specify required behavior under certain error conditions or
when data that is not understood is received in order to make it
easier to make future revisions in a way that does not break
backwards compatibility;
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 93]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
11) To incorporate ideas from draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-reqts-04.txt to
allow IKE to negotiate through NAT gateways;
12) To simplify and clarify how shared state is maintained in the
presence of network failures and Denial of Service attacks; and
13) To maintain existing syntax and magic numbers to the extent
possible to make it likely that implementations of IKEv1 can be
enhanced to support IKEv2 with minimum effort.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 94]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Appendix B: Diffie-Hellman Groups
There are 4 different Diffie-Hellman groups defined here for use in
IKE. These groups were generated by Richard Schroeppel at the
University of Arizona. Properties of these primes are described in
[Orm96].
The strength supplied by group one may not be sufficient for the
mandatory-to-implement encryption algorithm and is here for historic
reasons.
Additional Diffie-Hellman groups have been defined in [ADDGROUP].
B.1 Group 1 - 768 Bit MODP
This group is assigned id 1 (one).
The prime is: 2^768 - 2 ^704 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^638 pi] + 149686 }
Its hexadecimal value is:
FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 29024E08
8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD EF9519B3 CD3A431B
302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9
A63A3620 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF
The generator is 2.
B.2 Group 2 - 1024 Bit MODP
This group is assigned id 2 (two).
The prime is 2^1024 - 2^960 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^894 pi] + 129093 }.
Its hexadecimal value is:
FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 29024E08
8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD EF9519B3 CD3A431B
302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9
A637ED6B 0BFF5CB6 F406B7ED EE386BFB 5A899FA5 AE9F2411 7C4B1FE6
49286651 ECE65381 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF
The generator is 2.
B.3 Group 3 - 155 Bit EC2N
This group is assigned id 3 (three). The curve is based on the Galois
Field GF[2^155]. The field size is 155. The irreducible polynomial
for the field is:
u^155 + u^62 + 1.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 95]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
The equation for the elliptic curve is:
y^2 + xy = x^3 + ax^2 + b.
Field Size: 155
Group Prime/Irreducible Polynomial:
0x0800000000000000000000004000000000000001
Group Generator One: 0x7b
Group Curve A: 0x0
Group Curve B: 0x07338f
Group Order: 0x0800000000000000000057db5698537193aef944
The data in the KE payload when using this group is the value x from
the solution (x,y), the point on the curve chosen by taking the
randomly chosen secret Ka and computing Ka*P, where * is the
repetition of the group addition and double operations, P is the
curve point with x coordinate equal to generator 1 and the y
coordinate determined from the defining equation. The equation of
curve is implicitly known by the Group Type and the A and B
coefficients. There are two possible values for the y coordinate;
either one can be used successfully (the two parties need not agree
on the selection).
B.4 Group 4 - 185 Bit EC2N
This group is assigned id 4 (four). The curve is based on the Galois
Field GF[2^185]. The field size is 185. The irreducible polynomial
for the field is:
u^185 + u^69 + 1.
The equation for the elliptic curve is:
y^2 + xy = x^3 + ax^2 + b.
Field Size: 185
Group Prime/Irreducible Polynomial:
0x020000000000000000000000000000200000000000000001
Group Generator One: 0x18
Group Curve A: 0x0
Group Curve B: 0x1ee9
Group Order: 0x01ffffffffffffffffffffffdbf2f889b73e484175f94ebc
The data in the KE payload when using this group will be identical to
that as when using Oakley Group 3 (three).
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 96]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Change History (To be removed from RFC)
H.1 Changes from IKEv2-00 to IKEv2-01 February 2002
1) Changed Appendix B to specify the encryption and authentication
processing for IKE rather than referencing ESP. Simplified the format
by removing idiosyncrasies not needed for IKE.
2) Added option for authentication via a shared secret key.
3) Specified different keys in the two directions of IKE messages.
Removed requirement of different cookies in the two directions since
now no longer required.
4) Change the quantities signed by the two ends in AUTH fields to
assure the two parties sign different quantities.
5) Changed reference to AES to AES_128.
6) Removed requirement that Diffie-Hellman be repeated when rekeying
IKE_SA.
7) Fixed typos.
8) Clarified requirements around use of port 500 at the remote end in
support of NAT.
9) Clarified required ordering for payloads.
10) Suggested mechanisms for avoiding DoS attacks.
11) Removed claims in some places that the first phase 2 piggybacked
on phase 1 was optional.
H.2 Changes from IKEv2-01 to IKEv2-02 April 2002
1) Moved the Initiator CERTREQ payload from message 1 to message 3.
2) Added a second optional ID payload in message 3 for the Initiator
to name a desired Responder to support the case where multiple named
identities are served by a single IP address.
3) Deleted the optimization whereby the Diffie-Hellman group did not
need to be specified in phase 2 if it was the same as in phase 1 (it
complicated the design with no meaningful benefit).
4) Added a section on the implications of reusing Diffie-Hellman
exponentials
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 97]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
5) Changed the specification of sequence numbers to being at 0 in
both directions.
6) Many editorial changes and corrections, the most significant being
a global replace of "byte" with "octet".
H.3 Changes from IKEv2-02 to IKEv2-03 October 2002
1) Reorganized the document moving introductory material to the
front.
2) Simplified the specification of Traffic Selectors to allow only
IPv4 and IPv6 address ranges, as was done in the JFK spec.
3) Fixed the problem brought up by David Faucher with the fix
suggested by Valery Smyslov. If Bob needs to narrow the selector
range, but has more than one matching narrower range, then if Alice's
first selector is a single address pair, Bob chooses the range that
encompasses that.
4) To harmonize with the JFK spec, changed the exchange so that the
initial exchange can be completed in four messages even if the
responder must invoke an anti-clogging defense and the initiator
incorrectly anticipates the responder's choice of Diffie-Hellman
group.
5) Replaced the hierarchical SA payload with a simplified version
that only negotiates suites of cryptographic algorithms.
H.4 Changes from IKEv2-03 to IKEv2-04 January 2003
1) Integrated NAT traversal changes (including Appendix A).
2) Moved the anti-clogging token (cookie) from the SPI to a NOTIFY
payload; changed negotiation back to 6 messages when a cookie is
needed.
3) Made capitalization of IKE_SA and CHILD_SA consistent.
4) Changed how IPComp was negotiated.
5) Added usage scenarios.
6) Added configuration payload for acquiring internal addresses on
remote networks.
7) Added negotiation of tunnel vs. transport mode.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 98]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
H.5 Changes from IKEv2-04 to IKEv2-05 February 2003
1) Shortened Abstract
2) Moved NAT Traversal from Appendix to section 2. Moved changes from
IKEv2 to Appendix A. Renumbered sections.
3) Made language more consistent. Removed most references to Phase 1
and Phase 2.
4) Made explicit the requirements for support of NAT Traversal.
5) Added support for Extended Authentication Protocol methods.
6) Added Response bit to message header.
7) Made more explicit the encoding of Diffie-Hellman numbers in key
expansion algorithms.
8) Added ID payloads to AUTH payload computation.
9) Expanded set of defined cryptographic suites.
10) Added text for MUST/SHOULD support for ID payloads.
11) Added new certificate formats and added MUST/SHOULD text.
12) Clarified use of CERTREQ.
13) Deleted "MUST SUPPORT" column in CP payload specification (it was
inconsistent with surrounding text).
14) Extended and clarified Conformance Requirements section,
including specification of a minimal implementation.
15) Added text to specify ECN handling.
H.6 Changes from IKEv2-05 to IKEv2-06 March 2003
1) Changed the suite based crypto negotiation back to ala carte.
2) Eliminated some awkward page breaks, typographical errors, and
other formatting issues.
3) Tightened language describing cryptographic strength.
4) Added references.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 99]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
5) Added more specific error codes.
6) Added rationale for unintuitive key generation hash with shared
secret based authentication.
7) Changed the computation of the authenticating AUTH payload as
proposed by Hugo Krawczyk.
8) Changed the dashes (-) to underscores (_) in the names of fields
and constants.
H.7 Changes from IKEv2-06 to IKEv2-07 April 2003
1) Added a list of payload types to section 3.2.
2) Clarified use of SET_WINDOW_SIZE Notify payload.
3) Removed references to COOKIE_REQUIRED Notify payload.
4) Specified how to use a prf with a fixed key size.
5) Removed g^ir from data processed by prf+.
6) Strengthened cautions against using passwords as shared keys.
7) Renamed Protocol_id field SECURITY_PROTOCOL_ID when it is not the
Protocol ID from IP, and changed its values for consistency with
IKEv1.
8) Clarified use of ID payload in access control decisions.
9) Gave IDr and TSr their own payload type numbers.
10) Added Intellectual Property rights section.
11) Clarified some issues in NAT Traversal.
H.8 Changes from IKEv2-07 to IKEv2-08 May 2003
1) Numerous editorial corrections and clarifications.
2) Renamed Gateway to Security Gateway.
3) Made explicit that the ability to rekey SAs without restarting IKE
was optional.
4) Removed last references to MUST and SHOULD cipher suites.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 100]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
5) Changed examples to "example.com".
6) Changed references to status codes to status types.
7) Simplified IANA Considerations section
8) Updated References
H.9 Changes from IKEv2-08 to IKEv2-09 August 2003
1) Numerous editorial corrections and clarifications.
2) Added REKEY_SA notify payload to the first message of a
CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange if the new exchange was rekeying an existing
SA.
3) Renamed AES_ENCR128 to AES_ENCR and made it take a single
parameter that is the key size (which may be 128, 192, or 256 bits).
4) Clarified when a newly created SA is useable.
5) Added additional text to section 2.23 specifying how to negotiate
NAT Traversal.
6) Replaced specification of ECN handling with a reference to
[RFC2401bis].
7) Renumbered payloads so that numbers would not collide with IKEv1
payload numbers in hopes of making code implementing both protocols
simpler.
8) Expanded the Transform ID field (also referred to as Diffie-
Hellman group number) from one byte to two bytes.
9) Removed ability to negotiate Diffie-Hellman groups by explicitly
passing parameters. They must now be negotiated using Transform IDs.
10) Renumbered status codes to be contiguous.
11) Specified the meaning of the "Port" fields in Traffic Selectors
when the ICMP protocol is being used.
12) Removed the specification of D-H Group #5 since it is already
specified in [ADDGROUP.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 101]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
H.10 Changes from IKEv2-09 to IKEv2-10 August 2003
1) Numerous boilerplate and formatting corrections to comply with RFC
Editorial Guidelines and procedures.
2) Fixed five typographical errors.
3) Added a sentence to the end of "Security considerations"
discouraging the use of non-key-generating EAP mechanisms.
H.11 Changes from IKEv2-10 to IKEv2-11 October 2003
1) Added SHOULD NOT language concerning use of non-key-generating EAP
authentication methods and added reference [EAPMITM].
2) Clarified use of parallel SAs with identical traffic selectors for
purposes of QoS handling.
3) Fixed description of ECN handling to make normative references to
[RFC2401bis] and [RFC3168].
4) Fixed two typos in the description of NAT traversal.
5) Added specific ASN.1 encoding of certificate bundles in section
3.6.
H.12 Changes from IKEv2-11 to IKEv2-12 January 2004
1) Made the values of the one byte IPsec Protocol ID consistent
between payloads and made the naming more nearly consistent.
2) Changed the specification to require that AUTH payloads be
provided in EAP exchanges even when a non-key generating EAP method
is used. This protects against certain obscure cryptographic
threats.
3) Changed all example IP addresses to be within subnet 10.
4) Specified that issues surrounding weak keys and DES key parity
must be addressed in algorithm documents.
5) Removed the unsupported (and probably untrue) claim that Photuris
cookies were given that name because the IETF always supports
proposals involving cookies.
6) Fixed some text that specified that Transform ID was 1 octet while
everywhere else said it was 2 octets.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 102]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
7) Corrected the ASN.1 specification of the encoding of X.509
certificate bundles.
8) Added an INVALID_SELECTORS error type.
9) Replaced IANA considerations section with a reference to draft-
ietf-ipsec-ikev2-iana-00.txt.
10) Removed 2 obsolete informative references and added one to a
paper on UDP fragmentation problems.
11) 41 Editorial Corrections and Clarifications.
12) 6 Grammatical and Spelling errors fixed.
13) 4 Corrected capitalizations of MAY/MUST/etc.
14) 4 Attempts to make capitalization and use of underscores more
consistent.
H.13 Changes from IKEv2-12 to IKEv2-13 March 2004
1) Updated copyright and intellectual property right sections per RFC
3667. Added normative references to RFC 3667 and RFC 3668.
2) Updated IANA Considerations section and adjusted some assignment
tables to be consistent with the IANA registries document. Added
Michael Richardson to the acknowledgements.
3) Changed the cryptographic formula for computing the AUTH payload
in the case where EAP authentication is used and the EAP algorithm
does not produce a shared key. Clarified the case where it does
produce a shared key.
4) Extended the EAP authentication protocol by two messages so that
the AUTH message is always sent after the success status is received.
5) Updated reference to ESP encapsulation in UDP and made it
normative.
6) Added notification type ESP_TFC_PADDING_NOT_SUPPORTED.
7) Clarified encoding of port number fields in transport selectors in
the cases of ICMP and OPAQUE.
8) Clarified that the length of the integrity checksum is fixed
length and determined by the negotiated integrity algorithm.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 103]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
9) Added an informative reference to RFC 3715 (NAT Compatibility
Requirements).
10) Fixed 2 typos.
H.14 Changes from IKEv2-13 to IKEv2-14 May 2004
1) ISSUE #99: Clarified use of tunnel mode vs. transport mode.
2) Changed the cryptographic formula for computing the AUTH payload
in response to a suggestion from Hugo Krawczyk.
3) Fixed a wording error in the explanation of why NAT traversal
works as it does related to processing by legacy NAT gateways.
4) Corrected the label AUTH_AES_XCBC_96 to AUTH_AES_PRF_128.
5) Deleted suggestion that ID_KEY_ID field might be used to pass an
account name.
6) Listed the newly allocated OID for certificate bundle.
7) Added NON_FIRST_FRAGMENTS_ALSO notification for negotiating the
ability to send non-initial fragments of packets on the same SA as
the initial fragments.
8) ISSUE #97: Removed language concerning the relative strength of
Diffie-Hellman groups.
9) ISSUE #100: Reduced requirements concerning sending of
certificates to allow implementations to by more coy about their
identities and protect themselves from probing attacks. Listed in
Security Considerations some issues an implementer might consider in
deciding how to deal with such attacks.
10) Made the punctuation of references to RFCs more consistent.
11) Fixed fourteen typos.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 104]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Editor's Address
Charlie Kaufman
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
1-425-707-3335
charliek@microsoft.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 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 Statement
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.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 105]
Internet-Draft May 29, 2004
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Expiration
This Internet-Draft (draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt) expires in
November 2004.
IKEv2 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt [Page 106]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/