--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-sec-24.txt 2021-12-09 05:13:12.190559783 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25.txt 2021-12-09 05:13:12.246561177 -0800 @@ -3,21 +3,21 @@ Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track V.E. Ermagan Expires: 11 June 2022 Google A.C. Cabellos Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya D.S. Saucez Inria 8 December 2021 LISP-Security (LISP-SEC) - draft-ietf-lisp-sec-24 + draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25 Abstract This memo specifies LISP-SEC, a set of security mechanisms that provides origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection to LISP's EID-to-RLOC mapping data conveyed via mapping lookup process. LISP-SEC also enables verification of authorization on EID- prefix claims in Map-Reply messages. Status of This Memo @@ -47,21 +47,21 @@ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. LISP-SEC Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Protocol Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. LISP-SEC Control Messages Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Encapsulated Control Message LISP-SEC Extensions . . . . 7 6.2. Map-Reply LISP-SEC Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.3. Map-Register LISP-SEC Extentions . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.4. ITR Processing: Generating a Map-Request . . . . . . . . 12 6.4.1. PITR Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.5. Encrypting and Decrypting an OTK . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 @@ -86,21 +86,21 @@ Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.1. ECM AD Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.2. Map-Reply AD Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.3. HMAC Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8.4. Key Wrap Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8.5. Key Derivation Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1. Introduction The Locator/ID Separation Protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis],[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] is a network- layer-based protocol that enables separation of IP addresses into two new numbering spaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). EID-to-RLOC mappings are stored in a database, the @@ -126,27 +126,27 @@ entitled to do so according to the EID prefix registered in the associated Map-Server. Map-Register/Map-Notify security, including the right for a LISP entity to register an EID-prefix or to claim presence at an RLOC, is out of the scope of LISP-SEC as those protocols are protected by the security mechanisms specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. However, LISP-SEC extends the Map- Register message to allow an ITR to securely downgrade to non LISP- SEC Map-Requests. Additional security considerations are described in Section 6. -2. Requirements Language +2. Requirements Notation 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 BCP14 [RFC2119] - [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown - here. + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and + "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP + 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all + capitals, as shown here. 3. Definition of Terms One-Time Key (OTK): An ephemeral randomly generated key that must be used for a single Map-Request/Map-Reply exchange. ITR One-Time Key (ITR-OTK): The One-Time Key generated at the Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR). MS One-Time Key (MS-OTK): The One-Time Key generated at the Map- Server. @@ -1035,181 +1035,186 @@ registry with values 0-255, for use in the ECM LISP-SEC Extensions Section 6.1. The registry MUST be initially populated with the following values: Name Value Defined In ------------------------------------------------- Reserved 0 This memo LISP-SEC-ECM-EXT 1 This memo Values 2-255 are unassigned. They are to be assigned according to - the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC5226]. + the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126]. 8.2. Map-Reply AD Type Registry IANA is requested to create the "Map-Reply Authentication Data Type" registry with values 0-255, for use in the Map-Reply LISP-SEC Extensions Section 6.2. The registry MUST be initially populated with the following values: Name Value Defined In ------------------------------------------------- Reserved 0 This memo LISP-SEC-MR-EXT 1 This memo Values 2-255 are unassigned. They are to be assigned according to - the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC5226]. + the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126]. 8.3. HMAC Functions IANA is requested to create the "LISP-SEC Authentication Data HMAC ID" registry with values 0-65535 for use as Requested HMAC ID, EID HMAC ID, and PKT HMAC ID in the LISP-SEC Authentication Data: Name Number Defined In ------------------------------------------------- NONE 0 This memo AUTH-HMAC-SHA-1-96 1 [RFC2104] AUTH-HMAC-SHA-256-128 2 [RFC6234] Values 3-65535 are unassigned. They are to be assigned according to - the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC5226]. + the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126]. AUTH-HMAC-SHA-1-96 MUST be supported, AUTH-HMAC-SHA-256-128 SHOULD be supported. 8.4. Key Wrap Functions IANA is requested to create the "LISP-SEC Authentication Data Key Wrap ID" registry with values 0-65535 for use as OTK key wrap algorithms ID in the LISP-SEC Authentication Data: Name Number KEY WRAP KDF ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reserved 0 None None NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 1 This memo None AES-KEY-WRAP-128+HKDF-SHA256 2 [RFC3394] [RFC4868] Values 3-65535 are unassigned. They are to be assigned according to - the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC5226]. + the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126]. NULL-KEY-WRAP-128, and AES-KEY-WRAP-128+HKDF-SHA256 MUST be supported. NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 is used to carry an unencrypted 128-bit OTK, with a 64-bit preamble set to 0x0000000000000000 (64 bits). 8.5. Key Derivation Functions IANA is requested to create the "LISP-SEC Authentication Data Key Derivation Function ID" registry with values 0-65535 for use as KDF ID in the LISP-SEC Authentication Data: Name Number Defined In ------------------------------------------------- NONE 0 This memo HKDF-SHA1-128 1 [RFC5869] Values 2-65535 are unassigned. They are to be assigned according to - the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC5226]. + the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126]. HKDF-SHA1-128 MUST be supported 9. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Pere Monclus, Dave Meyer, Dino Farinacci, Brian Weis, David McGrew, Darrel Lewis and Landon Curt Noll for their valuable suggestions provided during the preparation of this document. 10. References 10.1. Normative References - [AFN] IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Address - Family Numbers", 2021, - . - [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp- rfc6833bis-30, 18 November 2020, . - [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- - Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, - . - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . - [RFC3394] Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption Standard - (AES) Key Wrap Algorithm", RFC 3394, DOI 10.17487/RFC3394, - September 2002, . - [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, . [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, . - [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an - IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, - . + [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer + Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, + January 2012, . + + [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for + Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, + RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, + . + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, . + +10.2. Informational References + + [AFN] IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Address + Family Numbers", 2021, + . + + [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] + Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. + Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", + Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp- + rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020, + . + + [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- + Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, + . + + [RFC3394] Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption Standard + (AES) Key Wrap Algorithm", RFC 3394, DOI 10.17487/RFC3394, + September 2002, . [RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010, . - [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer - Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, - January 2012, . + [RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms + (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011, + . [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, January 2013, . [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, . [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, February 2017, . - [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC - 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, - May 2017, . - -10.2. Informative References - - [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] - Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. - Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", - Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp- - rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020, - . - Authors' Addresses Fabio Maino Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95134 United States of America Email: fmaino@cisco.com