draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-03.txt   draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-04.txt 
Network Working Group J. Pezeshki Network Working Group J. Pezeshki
Internet-Draft E. Ertekin Internet-Draft E. Ertekin
Expires: February 28, 2008 R. Jasani Intended status: Experimental R. Jasani
C. Christou Expires: April 10, 2008 C. Christou
Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton
August 27, 2007 October 8, 2007
IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec
(RoHCoIPsec) (RoHCoIPsec)
draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-03 draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-04
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 10, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
When using Robust Header Compression (RoHC [ROHC]) in conjunction When using Robust Header Compression (RoHC [ROHC]) in conjunction
with IPsec [IPSEC] (i.e. [ROHCOIPSEC]) a mechanism is needed to with IPsec [IPSEC] (i.e. [RoHCOIPSEC]) a mechanism is needed to
negotiate RoHC configuration parameters between end-points prior to negotiate RoHC configuration parameters between end-points prior to
operation. Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a mechanism which can be operation. Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a mechanism which can be
leveraged to handle these negotiations. This document specifies leveraged to handle these negotiations. This document specifies
extensions to Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2 [IKEV2]) that will allow extensions to Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2 [IKEV2]) that will allow
RoHC and its associated configuration parameters to be negotiated for RoHC and its associated configuration parameters to be negotiated for
IPsec security associations (SAs). IPsec security associations (SAs).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RoHC Channel Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RoHC Channel Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Negotiation of RoHC Channel Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Negotiation of RoHC Channel Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Increased packet header overhead due to IPsec protection can result Increased packet header overhead due to IPsec protection can result
in inefficient utilization of bandwidth. Coupling RoHC with IPsec in inefficient utilization of bandwidth. Coupling RoHC with IPsec
offers an efficient way to transfer protected IP traffic. offers an efficient way to transfer protected IP traffic.
For proper RoHCoIPsec [ROHCOIPSEC] operation, RoHC requires For proper RoHCoIPsec [ROHCOIPSEC] operation, RoHC requires
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
RoHC configuration parameters will be negotiated at either the RoHC configuration parameters will be negotiated at either the
establishment or rekeying of a Child SA. Specifically, a Notify establishment or rekeying of a Child SA. Specifically, a Notify
payload will be used during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA payload will be used during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA
exchanges to negotiate the RoHCoIPsec session. The Notify payload exchanges to negotiate the RoHCoIPsec session. The Notify payload
sent by the initiator will contain the configuration parameters for sent by the initiator will contain the configuration parameters for
the RoHC scheme. Upon receipt of the initiator's request, the the RoHC scheme. Upon receipt of the initiator's request, the
responder will either ignore the payload (if it doesn't support RoHC responder will either ignore the payload (if it doesn't support RoHC
or the proposed parameters) or respond with a Notify payload that or the proposed parameters) or respond with a Notify payload that
contains the accepted RoHC channel parameters. These accepted contains the accepted RoHC channel parameters. These accepted
parameters are a subset of the parameters proposed by the initiator, parameters are subset of the parameters proposed by the initiator,
and the parameters supported by the responder (e.g. if the initiator and the parameters supported by the responder (e.g. if the initiator
proposes a MAX_CID value of 15, but the responder only supports a proposes a MAX_CID value of 15, but the responder only supports a
MAX_CID value of 13, the responder will respond with a value of 13, MAX_CID value of 13, the responder will respond with a value of 13,
which is supported by both parties). Note that only one Notify which is supported by both parties). Note that only one Notify
payload is used to convey RoHC parameters per exchange. If multiple payload is used to convey RoHC parameters per exchange. If multiple
Notify payloads relaying RoHC parameters are received by the Notify payloads relaying RoHC parameters are received by the
responder, all but the first such Notify payload must be dropped. responder, all but the first such Notify payload must be dropped.
A new Notify Message Type value, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED, will be A new Notify Message Type value, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED, will be
added to indicate that the Notify payload is conveying RoHC channel added to indicate that the Notify payload is conveying RoHC channel
parameters. Additionally, the fields of the Notify payload (as parameters. Additionally, several fields of the Notify payload (as
defined in [IKEV2]) are set as follows: defined in [IKEV2]) are set as follows:
Next Payload (1 octet)
If the current payload is the last in the message, then this field
will be 0. The Next Payload value of the previous payload must be
41, indicating that this current payload is a Notify Payload.
Critical (1 bit) Critical (1 bit)
This value is set to zero, indicating that the recipient must skip This value is set to zero to indicate that the recipient must skip
this payload if it does not understand the payload type code in this payload if it does not understand the payload type code in
the Next Payload field of the previous payload. the Next Payload field of the previous payload.
RESERVED (7 bits) RESERVED (7 bits)
Must be sent as zero, and must be ignored on receipt. Must be sent as zero, and must be ignored on receipt.
Payload Length (2 octets)
Length in octets of the current payload, including the generic
payload header (the generic payload header is defined in [IKEV2],
section 3.2).
Protocol ID (1 octet) Protocol ID (1 octet)
Since the RoHC parameters are set at SA creation, and thus do not Since the RoHC parameters are set at SA creation, and thus do not
relate to an existing SA, this field must be set to zero. relate to an existing SA, this field must be set to zero.
SPI Size (1 octet) SPI Size (1 octet)
This value must be set to zero, since no SPI is applicable (RoHC This value must be set to zero, since no SPI is applicable (RoHC
parameters are set at SA creation, thus the SPI has not been parameters are set at SA creation, thus the SPI has not been
defined). defined).
Notify Message Type (2 octets) Notify Message Type (2 octets)
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
MAX_HEADER (2 octets) MAX_HEADER (2 octets)
The largest header size in octets that may be compressed. The largest header size in octets that may be compressed.
Suggested value: 168 octets Suggested value: 168 octets
Note: The MAX_HEADER parameter is not used for all RoHC profiles. Note: The MAX_HEADER parameter is not used for all RoHC profiles.
If none of the RoHC profiles require this field, this value is If none of the RoHC profiles require this field, this value is
ignored. ignored.
PROFILES PROFILES
The set of profiles to be enabled for the RoHC process. This The set of profiles to be enabled for the RoHC process. Profiles
field may be set to one (or multiple) values listed in 'ROHC are further detailed in [ROHC]. In addition, several common
profile identifiers' [ROHCPROF]. profiles are defined in [ROHCPROF]. These 16-bit profile
identifiers are to be sent in network byte order.
Note: When a pair of SAs are created (one in each direction), the Note: When a pair of SAs are created (one in each direction), the
RoHC channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set implicitly to the other SA RoHC channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set implicitly to the other SA
of the pair (i.e. the SA pointing in the reverse direction). of the pair (i.e. the SA pointing in the reverse direction).
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The RoHC parameters negotiated via IKEv2 do not add any new The RoHC parameters negotiated via IKEv2 do not add any new
vulnerabilities beyond those associated with the normal operation of vulnerabilities beyond those associated with the normal operation of
IKEv2. IKEv2.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new Notify Message (Status Type). Therefore, This document defines a new Notify Message (Status Type). Therefore,
IANA is requested to allocate one value from the IKEv2 Notify Message IANA is requested to allocate one value from the IKEv2 Notify Message
registry to indicate ROHC_SUPPORTED. registry to indicate ROHC_SUPPORTED. Note that, since this Notify
Message is a Status Type, values ranging from 0 to 16383 must not be
allocated for ROHC_SUPPORTED.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. Sean O'Keeffe, Mr. James Kohler, The authors would like to thank Mr. Sean O'Keeffe, Mr. James Kohler,
and Ms. Linda Noone of the Department of Defense, as well as Mr. Rich and Ms. Linda Noone of the Department of Defense, as well as Mr. Rich
Espy of OPnet for their contributions and support in the development Espy of OPnet for their contributions and support in the development
of this document. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Tero of this document. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Tero
Kivinen for providing his technical expertise for this document. In Kivinen for providing his technical expertise for this document. In
addition, the authors would like to thank the following for their addition, the authors would like to thank the following for their
numerous reviews and comments to this document: numerous reviews and comments to this document:
o Dr. Stephen Kent o Dr. Stephen Kent
o Dr. Carsten Bormann o Dr. Carsten Bormann
o Mr. Lars-Erik Jonnson o Mr. Lars-Erik Jonnson
o Mr. Pasi Eronen o Mr. Pasi Eronen
Finally, the authors would also like to thank Mr. Tom Conkle, Ms. Finally, the authors would also like to thank Mr. Tom Conkle, Ms.
Michele Casey, and Mr. Etzel Brower. Michele Casey, and Mr. Etzel Brower.
6. References 6. Normative References
6.1. Normative References
[ROHC] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., [ROHC] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K., Hannu, H., Jonsson, L., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K.,
Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001. ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.
[IPSEC] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [IPSEC] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RoHCOIPSEC]
Ertekin, E., Christou, C., and R. Jasani, "Integration of
Robust Header Compression over IPsec Security
Associations", work in progress , June 2006.
[IKEV2] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", [IKEV2] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
RFC 4306, December 2005. RFC 4306, December 2005.
[ROHCPROF] [ROHCPPP] Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP",
IANA, ""RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Profile RFC 3241, April 2002.
Identifiers", IANA registry at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rohc-pro-ids", July 2007.
6.2. Informative References [AH] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005.
[ROHCOIPSEC] [ESP] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
Ertekin, E., Christou, C., Jasani, R., and J. Pezeshki, RFC 4303, December 2005.
"Integration of Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over
IPsec Security Associations", work in progress ,
August 2007.
[ROHCPPP] Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP", [ROHCPROF]
RFC 3241, April 2002. Pelletier, G. and K. Sandlund, "RObust Header Compression
Version 2 (RoHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP
Lite", www.iana.org/assignments/ROHC-pro-ids , May 2007.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jonah Pezeshki Jonah Pezeshki
Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton
13200 Woodland Park Dr. 13200 Woodland Park Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171 Herndon, VA 20171
US US
Email: pezeshki_jonah@bah.com Email: pezeshki_jonah@bah.com
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or deleted 33 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/