[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 4058

Internet Engineering Task Force                 Alper E. Yegin (Editor)
Internet Draft                                           Yoshihiro Ohba
draft-ietf-pana-requirements-00.txt                      Reinaldo Penno
Expires: August 3, 2002                                 George Tsirtsis
                                                             Cliff Wang
                                                       February 3, 2002


                 Protocol for Carrying Authentication for
                           Network Access (PANA)
                       Requirements and Terminology


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
   with 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract

   It is expected that future IP devices will have a variety of access
   technologies to gain network connectivity. Currently there are
   access-specific mechanisms for providing client information to the
   network for authentication and authorization purposes. In addition
   to being limited to specific access medias (e.g., 802.1x for IEEE
   802 links), some of these protocols are also sub-optimal (e.g., PPP
   due to its mandatory framing which is not always needed). The goal
   of the PANA Working Group is to design a general network-layer
   protocol to authenticate clients to the networks. The protocol will
   run between a client's device and an agent device in the network
   where the agent might be a client of the AAA infrastructure. The
   protocol should be independent of the underlying access-type and not
   overloaded with other aspects of the network access (e.g., framing).
   This document defines the common terminology and identifies the
   requirements for PANA.



 Yegin (Editor), et. al.         Expires Aug 2002             [Page 1]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002

                             Table of Contents
   Status of this Memo................................................1
   Abstract...........................................................1
   1. Introduction....................................................3
   2. Key Words.......................................................4
   3. Terminology.....................................................4
   4. Requirements....................................................4
   4.1. Authentication................................................4
   4.1.1. Authentication of Client....................................4
   4.1.2. Authorization, Accounting and Access Control................5
   4.1.3. Authentication Backend......................................5
   4.1.4. Re-authentication...........................................5
   4.1.5. Mutual Authentication.......................................6
   4.1.6. Identifiers.................................................6
   4.2. Network.......................................................6
   4.2.1. Multi-access................................................6
   4.2.2. Disconnect Indication.......................................6
   4.2.3. Location of PAA.............................................6
   4.3. Interaction with Other Protocols..............................6
   4.4. Performance...................................................7
   4.5. Miscellaneous.................................................7
   4.5.1. IP Version Independence.....................................7
   4.5.2. Reliability and Congestion..................................7
   4.5.3. Denial of Service Attacks...................................7
   Acknowledgements...................................................7
   References.........................................................8
   AuthorsÆ Addresses.................................................9
   Full Copyright Statement..........................................10























 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002               [Page 2]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002

1. Introduction

   Currently there are a variety of access technologies available to
   the network clients. While most of the clients currently have single
   interface, it is expected that in the future they will have multiple
   interfaces of different types to access the network.

   An authentication mechanism is needed in order to provide secure
   network access to the legitimate clients. Some of the current
   authentication mechanisms are access technology specific. For
   example 802.1x [8021X] only works for IEEE 802 link layers. If a
   client can have more than one type of interface, using access-
   specific authentication mechanisms leads to running a collection of
   protocols on the client for the same purpose. It is clearly
   advantageous to use a general protocol to authenticate the client
   for network access on any type of technology.

   The most widely used protocol for authenticating clients is the PPP
   [PPP]. This protocol can run on various access types, but it is not
   limited to authenticating the clients. It also provides mandatory
   PPP framing. Since framing is already supported by certain link
   types, having to use this extra framing creates sub-optimal network
   access solutions.

   There is currently no general protocol to be used by a client for
   gaining network access, and the PANA Working Group will attempt to
   fill that hole. The Working Group will design a protocol between a
   client's device and an agent device in the network where the agent
   might be a client of the AAA infrastructure. As a network-layer
   protocol, it will be independent of the underlying access
   technologies. The protocol design will also be limited to defining a
   messaging protocol (i.e., a carrier) for providing the clients'
   information to the network for authentication and authorization
   purposes. It will not deal with the other aspects of network access
   such as framing.

   The Working Group will not invent new security protocols and
   mechanisms but instead will use the existing mechanisms. In
   particular, the Working Group will not define authentication
   protocols, key distribution or key agreement protocols, or key
   derivation. The desired protocol can be viewed as the front-end of
   the AAA protocol or any other protocol/mechanisms the network is
   running at the background to authenticate its clients. It will act
   as a carrier for an already defined security protocol or mechanism.

   As an example, Mobile IP Working Group has already defined such a
   carrier for Mobile IPv4 [MIPV4]. Mobile IPv4 registration request
   message is used as the carrier for authentication extensions (MN-FA
   [MIPV4], or MN-AAA [MNAAA]) to receive forwarding service from the
   foreign agents. In that sense, designing the equivalent of Mobile
   IPv4 registration request messages for general network access is the


 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002               [Page 3]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002

   goal of this work, but not defining the equivalent of MN-FA or MN-
   AAA extensions.

   This document defines the common terminology and identifies the
   requirements of a protocol for PANA. These terminology and
   requirements will be used to define and limit the scope of the work
   to be done in this group.


2. Key Words

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


3. Terminology

   Device Identifier (DI)

         The identifier used by the network as a handle to control and
         police the network access of a client. Depending on the access
         technology, identifier might contain any of IP address, link-
         layer address, switch port number, etc. of a device. PANA
         authentication agent keeps a table for binding device
         identifiers to the PANA clients. At most one PANA client
         should be associated with a DI on a PANA authentication agent.

   PANA Client (PaC)

         The entity wishing to obtain network access from a PANA
         authentication agent within a network. A PANA client is
         associated with a network device and a set of credentials to
         prove its identity within the scope of PANA.

   PANA Authentication Agent (PAA)

         The entity whose responsibility is to authenticate the
         credentials provided by a PANA client and grant network
         access service to the device associated with the client
         and identified by a DI.


4. Requirements

4.1. Authentication

  4.1.1. Authentication of Client

   PANA MUST authenticate a PaC for network access. A PaC can be
   identified by the credentials (identifier, authenticator) supplied
   by one of the users of the device or the device itself. PANA MUST

 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002               [Page 4]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002

   only grant network access service to the device identified by the
   DI, rather than granting separate access to multiple simultaneous
   users of the device. Once the network access is granted to the
   device, the methods used by the device on arbitrating which one of
   its users can access the network is outside the scope of PANA.

   PANA MUST NOT define new security protocols or mechanisms. Instead
   it must be defined as a "carrier" for such protocols. PANA MUST
   identify which specific security protocol(s) or mechanism(s) it can
   carry (the "payload"). An example of a carrier would be the
   registration request message of Mobile IPv4 [MIPV4] that carries MN-
   FA authentication extension.

   Authentication and encryption of data traffic sent to and from an
   authenticated PaC is outside the scope of PANA. Providing a complete
   secure network access solution by also securing router discovery
   [RDISC], neighbor discovery [NDISC], and address resolution
   protocols [ARP] is outside the scope as well.


  4.1.2. Authorization, Accounting and Access Control

   In addition to carrying authentication information, PANA MUST also
   carry a binary result (i.e., success or failure) of authorization
   for network access to the PaC. Providing finer granularity
   authorization is outside the scope of PANA.

   Providing access control functionality in the network is outside the
   scope of PANA. PAA MAY communicate the DI associated with a PaC to
   other entities in the network to setup packet filters and access
   control state. This interaction is outside the scope of PANA as
   well.

   Carrying accounting data is outside the scope of PANA.


  4.1.3. Authentication Backend

   PAA MAY use either a AAA backend, some other mechanism or a local
   database to authenticate the PaC. PANA protocol MUST NOT make any
   assumptions on the backend authentication protocol or mechanisms.
   The interaction between the PAA and the backend authentication
   entities is outside the scope of PANA.


  4.1.4. Re-authentication

   PANA MUST be capable of carrying out both periodic and on-demand re-
   authentication. Both the PaC and the PAA MUST be able to initiate
   both the initial authentication and the re-authentication process.



 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002               [Page 5]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002

  4.1.5. Mutual Authentication

   Both the PaC and the PAA MUST be able to authenticate each other for
   network access. Providing capability of only PAA authenticating the
   PaC is not sufficient.


  4.1.6. Identifiers

   PANA SHOULD allow various types of identifiers to be used for the
   PaC (e.g., NAI, IP address, FQDN, etc.)

   PANA SHOULD allow various types of identifiers to be used as the DI
   (IP address, link-layer address, port number of a switch, etc.)

   PAA MUST be able to create a binding between the PaC and the
   associated DI upon successful PANA exchange. This binding is used
   for access control and accounting in the network as described
   in section 4.1.2.


4.2. Network

  4.2.1. Multi-access

   Protocol MUST support PaCs with multiple interfaces, and networks
   with multiple routers on multi-access links.


  4.2.2. Disconnect Indication

   PANA MUST NOT assume connection-oriented links. Links may or may not
   provide disconnect indication. PANA SHOULD define a "disconnect"
   indication to allow PaCs to notify the PAA of their departure from
   the network. A similar indication SHOULD also be used to let PAA
   notify a PaC about the discontinuation of the network access. Access
   discontinuation can happen due to various reasons such as network
   systems going down, or a change in access policy.


  4.2.3. Location of PAA

   PAA MAY be one or more hop away from the PaC.


4.3. Interaction with Other Protocols

   PANA MUST NOT handle mobility management of the PaC. But, it MUST be
   able to co-exist and not interfere with various mobility management
   protocols, such as Mobile IPv4 [MIPV4], Mobile IPv6 [MIPV6], fast
   handover protocols [FMIPV4, FMIPV6], and other standard protocols
   like IPv6 stateless address auto-configuration [ADDRCONF] (including

 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002               [Page 6]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002

   privacy extensions [PRIVACY]), and DHCP [DHCP]. It MUST NOT make any
   assumptions on the protocols or mechanisms used for IP address
   configuration of the PaC.


4.4. Performance

   PANA design SHOULD give consideration to efficient handling of
   authentication process. This is important for gaining network access
   with minimum latency. As an example, a method like minimizing the
   protocol signaling by creating local security associations can be
   used for this purpose.


4.5. Miscellaneous

  4.5.1. IP Version Independence

   PANA MUST work for both IPv4 and IPv6.


  4.5.2. Reliability and Congestion

   PANA MUST provide reliability and congestion control. It can do so
   by using techniques like re-transmissions, cyclic redundancy check,
   delayed initialization and exponential back-off.


  4.5.3. Denial of Service Attacks

   PANA MUST be robust against a class of DoS attacks such as blind
   masquerade attacks through IP spoofing that swamp the PAA in
   spending much resources and prevent legitimate clientsÆ attempts of
   network access. The required robustness is no worse than that for
   TCP SYN attack.


Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Basavaraj Patil and Subir Das for their
   valuable contributions to the discussions and preparation of this
   document.











 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002               [Page 7]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002

References

   [KEYWORDS] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [8021X] ôIEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
   Port Based Network Access Controlö, IEEE Draft 802.1X/D11, March
   2001.

   [PPP] W. Simpson (editor), "The Point-To-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD
   51, RFC 1661, July 1994.

   [MIPV4] C. Perkins (editor), ôIP Mobility Supportö, RFC 2002,
   October 1996.

   [MIPV6] D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6",
   draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-15.txt, July 2001.

   [MNAAA] C. Perkins, P. Calhoun, ôMobile IPv4 Challenge/Response
   Extensionsö, RFC3012, November 2000.

   [RDISC] S. Deering, "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256,
   September 1991.

   [NDISC] T. Narten, E. Nordmark, and W. Simpson, ôNeighbor Discovery
   for IP Version 6 (IPv6)ö,RFC 2461, December 1998.

   [ARP] D. Plummer, "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol", STD
   37, RFC 826, November 1982.

   [FMIPV4] K. ElMalki (editor), et. al., "Low latency Handoffs in
   Mobile IPv4", draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4-03,
   November 2001.

   [FMIPV6] G. Dommety (editor), et. al., "Fast Handovers for Mobile
   IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mipv6-03.txt, July 2001.

   [DHCP] R. Droms (editor), et. al., ôDynamic Host Configuration
   Protocol for IPv6ö, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt, December 2001.

   [PRIVACY] T. Narten, R. Draves, ôPrivacy Extensions for Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6ö, RFC 3041, January 2001.











 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002               [Page 8]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002

AuthorsÆ Addresses

   Alper E. Yegin
   DoCoMo USA Labs
   181 Metro Drive, Suite 300
   San Jose, CA, 95110
   USA
   Phone: +1 408 451 4743
   Email: alper@docomolabs-usa.com

   Yoshihiro Ohba
   Toshiba America Research, Inc.
   P.O. Box 136
   Convent Station, NJ, 07961-0136
   USA
   Phone: +1 973 829 5174
   Email: yohba@tari.toshiba.com

   Reinaldo Penno
   Nortel Networks
   2305 Mission College Boulevard
   Santa Clara, CA, 95054
   USA
   Phone: +1 408 565 3023
   Email: rpenno@nortelnetworks.com

   George Tsirtsis
   Flarion Technologies
   Bedminster One
   135 Route 202/206 South
   Bedminster, NJ, 07921
   USA
   Phone : +44 20 88260073
   E-mail: G.Tsirtsis@Flarion.com, gtsirt@hotmail.com

   Cliff Wang
   Smart Pipes
   565 Metro Place South
   Dublin, OH, 43017
   USA
   Phone: +1 614 923 6241
   Email: cwang@smartpipes.com











 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002               [Page 9]


 Internet Draft      PANA Requirements and Terminology        Feb 2002


Full Copyright Statement

   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


























 Yegin (Editor), et.al.        Expires Aug 2002              [Page 10]


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