IPSEC Working Group Charlie Kaufman
INTERNET-DRAFT editor
draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-07.txt April 2003
Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol
<draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-07.txt>
Status of this Memo
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 document is an Internet Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [Bra96]. Internet Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and 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."
To learn the current status of any Internet Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Australia), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This document describes version 2 of the IKE (Internet Key Exchange)
protocol. IKE is a component of IPsec used for performing mutual
authentication and establishing and maintaining security
associations.
This version of IKE simplifies the design by removing options that
were rarely used and simplifying the encoding. This version of the
IKE specification combines the contents of what were previously
separate documents, including ISAKMP (RFC 2408), IKE (RFC 2409), the
Internet DOI (RFC 2407), NAT Traversal, Legacy authentication, and
remote address acquisition.
IKEv2 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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
Abstract.....................................................1
Requirements Terminology.....................................3
1 IKE Protocol Overview......................................3
1.1 Usage Scenarios..........................................5
1.1.1 Gateway to Gateway Tunnel..............................5
1.1.2 Endpoint to Endpoint Transport.........................5
1.1.3 Endpoint to Gateway Transport..........................6
1.1.4 Other Scenarios........................................7
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.............11
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...............15
2.6 Cookies.................................................17
2.7 Cryptographic Algorithm Negotiation.....................19
2.8 Rekeying................................................20
2.9 Traffic Selector Negotiation............................21
2.10 Nonces.................................................23
2.11 Address and Port Agility...............................23
2.12 Reuse of Diffie-Hellman Exponentials...................24
2.13 Generating Keying Material.............................24
2.14 Generating Keying Material for the IKE_SA..............25
2.15 Authentication of the IKE_SA...........................26
2.16 Extended Authentication Protocol Methods...............27
2.17 Generating Keying Material for CHILD_SAs...............29
2.18 Rekaying IKE_SAs using a CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange......29
2.19 Requesting an internal address on a remote network.....30
2.20 Requesting a Peer's Version............................31
2.21 Error Handling.........................................32
2.22 IPcomp.................................................33
2.23 NAT Traversal..........................................33
2.24 ECN Notification.......................................35
3 Header and Payload Formats................................36
3.1 The IKE Header..........................................36
3.2 Generic Payload Header..................................39
3.3 Security Association Payload............................40
IKEv2 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
3.3.1 Proposal Substructure.................................42
3.3.2 Transform Substructure................................44
3.3.3 Mandatory Transform Types.............................46
3.3.4 Mandatory Transform IDs...............................47
3.3.5 Transform Attributes..................................48
3.3.6 Attribute Negotiation.................................50
3.4 Key Exchange Payload....................................51
3.5 Identification Payload..................................52
3.6 Certificate Payload.....................................53
3.7 Certificate Request Payload.............................55
3.8 Authentication Payload..................................57
3.9 Nonce Payload...........................................58
3.10 Notify Payload.........................................58
3.10.1 Notify Message Types.................................59
3.11 Delete Payload.........................................64
3.12 Vendor ID Payload......................................66
3.13 Traffic Selector Payload...............................67
3.13.1 Traffic Selector.....................................68
3.14 Encrypted Payload......................................69
3.15 Configuration Payload..................................71
3.15.1 Configuration Attributes.............................74
3.16 Extended Authentication Protocol (EAP) Payload.........76
4 Conformance Requirements..................................78
5 Security Considerations...................................80
6 IANA Considerations.......................................81
7 Intellectual property rights..............................81
8 Acknowledgements..........................................81
9 References................................................82
9.1 Normative References....................................82
9.2 Non-normative References................................82
Appendix A: Summary of Changes from IKEv1...................85
Appendix B: Diffie-Hellman Groups...........................87
Change History..............................................90
Editor's Address............................................93
Full Copyright Statement....................................93
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].
1 IKE Protocol Overview
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
IKEv2 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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
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
(RFC 2406) and/or AH (RFC 2402). It also negotiates use of IPcomp
(RFC 2393) 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
MUST 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
IKEv2 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
identities, and sets up an SA for the first (and often only) AH
and/or ESP CHILD_SA.
The types of subsequent exchanges are CREATE_CHILD_SA (which creates
a CHILD_SA), or 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 Gateway to Gateway Tunnel
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
! ! IPsec ! !
Protected !Tunnel ! Tunnel !Tunnel ! Protected
Subnet <-->!Endpoint !<---------->!Endpoint !<--> Subnet
! ! ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Firewall to Firewall 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 sending 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 ! !
!Protected! Tunnel !Protected!
!Endpoint !<---------------------------------------->!Endpoint !
! ! ! !
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Endpoint to Endpoint
IKEv2 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
In this scenario, both endpoints of the IP connection implement
IPsec. These endpoints may implement application layer access
controls based on the authenticated identities of the participants.
Transport mode will 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 sent over this SA.
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 tunnelled 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.
1.1.3 Endpoint to Gateway Transport
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
! ! IPsec ! ! Protected
!Protected! Tunnel !Tunnel ! Subnet
!Endpoint !<------------------------>!Endpoint !<--- and/or
! ! ! ! Internet
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Endpoint to Gateway
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 gateway so that packets returned to it
will go to the gateway and be tunnelled back. This IP address may be
static or may be dynamically allocated by the gateway. In support of
the latter case, IKEv2 includes a mechanism for the initiator to
request an IP address owned by the 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
that will get traffic routed to the endpoint directly) while the
inner IP header will contain the source IP address assigned by the
gateway (i.e. the address that will get traffic routed to the gateway
for forwarding to the endpoint). The outer destination address will
always be that of the gateway, while the inner destination address
will be the ultimate destination for the packet.
IKEv2 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 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 noteable example combines aspects of 1.1.1 and 1.1.3. A
subnet may make all external accesses through a remote gateway using
an IPsec tunnel, where the addresses on the subnet are routed to the
gateway by the rest of the Internet. An example would be someones
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 (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
appear will be shown in brackets, such as [CERTREQ], would indicate
that optionally a certificate request payload can be included.
The initial exchanges are as follows:
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni -->
IKEv2 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 two messages 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 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
IKEv2 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
identity 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 using a syntax 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.
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
exchange are used in computing the keys for the CHILD_SA.
The CREATE_CHILD_SA request contains:
Initiator Responder
----------- -----------
HDR, SK {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 the SA
offers include different Diffie-Hellman groups, KEi must be an
element of the group the Initiator expects the responder to accept.
IKEv2 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
If she guesses wrong, the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange will fail and she
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 and have the initiator make another one.
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
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.
IKEv2 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 the SAs it receives on 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
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 unrecognised 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
IKEv2 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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
labelled 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.
For every pair of 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.
IKEv2 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 each 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
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
IKEv2 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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. 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.
IKEv2 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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, a liveness check MUST
be performed. 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.
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
IKEv2 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 A is capable of speaking versions n, n+1,
and n+2, and B is capable of speaking versions n and n+1, then they
will negotiate speaking n+1, where A 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
IKEv2 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 unrecognised, 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 section 3 and implementations SHOULD reject as
invalid a message with payloads in any other order.
2.6 Cookies
The term "cookies" originates with Karn and Simpson [RFC 2522] in
Photuris, an early proposal for key management with IPsec. It has
persisted because the IETF has never rejected a proposal involving
cookies. 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
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.
IKEv2 [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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.
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}
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.
An IKE implementation SHOULD implement its responder cookie
generation in such a way as to not require any saved state to
recognise 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 = <SecretVersionNumber> | Hash(Ni | IPi | SPIi | <secret>)
IKEv2 [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
where <secret> is a randomly generated secret known only to the
responder and periodically changed. <SecretVersionNumber> 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 <SecretVersionNumber>. 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 protocols (IKE, ESP, and/or AH) for the SA as well 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 be able 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. At most one proposal MAY be accepted.
(Example: if a single proposal contains ESP and AH and that
IKEv2 [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
proposal is accepted, both ESP and AH MUST be accepted. If ESP and
AH are included in separate proposals, only one of them MAY be
accepted).
Each protocol contains one or more transforms. Each transform
contains a transform type. The accepted crytographic suite MUST
contain exactly one transform of each type included in the
proposal. (Example: if an ESP proposal includes transforms
ENCR_3DES, ENCR_AES128, AUTH_HMAC_MD5, and AUTH_HMAC_SHA, the
accepted suite MUST contain one of the ENCR_ transforms and one of
the AUTH_ transforms. Thus four 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
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 rekey a CHILD_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
IKEv2 [Page 20]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 absense 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
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.
The node that initiated the surviving rekeyed SA SHOULD delete the
replaced SA after the new one is established.
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 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
IKEv2 [Page 21]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
Selectors. Each Traffic Selector consists of an address range (IPv4
or IPv6), a port range, and a 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 absense 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
18.16.*.* on Bob's side, Alice would include a single traffic
selector in each TS payload. TSi would specify the address range
(10.2.16.0 - 10.2.16.255) and TSr would specify the address range
(18.16.0.0 - 18.16.255.255). 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 18.16.2.123, 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
IKEv2 [Page 22]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 protocol from the packet and the
second containing (10.2.16.0 - 10.2.16.255) with all ports and
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 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.
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_SAs. Nonces used in IKEv2 MUST therefore be
randomly chosen and be at least 128 bits in size (or half the key
size of the negotiated prf if greater). 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 connection requests even if not received from UDP
IKEv2 [Page 23]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
port 500 or 4500, and MUST respond to the address and port from which
the request was received. 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.
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 generater that could be used to recompute the
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
IKEv2 [Page 24]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 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.
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
IKEv2 [Page 25]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
exchange. SKEYSEED is used to calculate five 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; and SK_ei and SK_er used for encrypting (and of course
decrypting) all subsequent exchanges. SKEYSEED and its derivatives
are computed as follows:
SKEYSEED = prf(Ni | Nr, g^ir)
{SK_d, SK_ai, SK_ar, SK_ei, SK_er}
= prf+ (SKEYSEED, Ni | Nr | SPIi | SPIr )
(indicating that the quantities SK_d, SK_ai, SK_ar, SK_ei, and SK_er
are taken in order from the generated bits of the 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, Ni and Nr MUST each be truncated to one half of
the fixed key length.
The two directions of 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 HMAC, 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_ar,IDr') where IDr' is
the responder's ID payload excluding the fixed header. Note that
neither the nonce Ni nor the value prf(SK_ar,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_ai,IDi'). In the above calculation, IDi' and IDr' are the
entire ID payloads excluding the fixed header. It is critical to the
IKEv2 [Page 26]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
security of the exchange that each side sign the other side's nonce
(see [SIGMA]).
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, an RSA-signed PKCS1-padded-hash for
an RSA digital signature, a DSS-signed SHA1-hash for a DSA digital
signature, or the negotiated prf function for a pre-shared key.
There is no requirement that the Initiator and Responder sign with
the same cryptographic algorithms. The choice of cryptographic
algorithms depends on the type of key each has. This type is either
indicated in the certificate supplied or, if the keys were exchanged
out of band, the key types must have been similarly learned. 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. 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 ASCII encoded and not null
terminated. 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 a one way transformation of it that 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
IKEv2 [Page 27]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 are used in addition to a public key
signature based authentication of the responder to the initator.
These methods are also 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 fully 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, [AUTH] } -->
IKEv2 [Page 28]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
<-- HDR, SK {EAP, [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 an AUTH payload using the syntax for shared
secrets specified in section 2.15. This shared key MUST NOT be used
for any other purpose.
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.
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 (ph2) | Ni | Nr )
where g^ir (ph2) 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),
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 is taken from the expanded KEYMAT in the following
order:
All keys for SAs carrying data from the initiator to the responder
are taken before SAs going in the reverse direction.
IKEv2 [Page 29]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
If multiple 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 re-key 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 in the endpoint to gateway scenario, an endpoint may
need an IP address on the gateway's internal network, 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 trying to tunnel
into a network protected by an IRAS. Since the IKE_AUTH exchange
creates an IKE_SA and a CHILD_SA, the IRAC MUST request the internal
address (and optionally other information concerning the internal
network) in the IKE_AUTH exchange. The IRAS may procure an internal
address for the IRAC from any number of sources such as a DHCP/BOOTP
server or its own address pool.
IKEv2 [Page 30]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 immediately 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 are a (protocol, port range, address range)
Message from Responder to Initiator:
CP(CFG_REPLY)=
INTERNAL_ADDRESS(192.168.219.202)
INTERNAL_NETMASK(255.255.255.0)
INTERNAL_SUBNET(192.168.219.0/255.255.255.0)
TSi = (0, 0-65536,192.168.219.202-192.168.219.202)
TSr = (0, 0-65536,192.168.219.0-192.168.219.255)
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
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
IKEv2 [Page 31]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 version
information MUST 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 non-existent 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.
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
IKEv2 [Page 32]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 MAY ONLY occur in the same messages that contain SA
payloads.
While there has been discussion of allowing multiple compression
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
IKEv2 [Page 33]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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
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
IKEv2 [Page 34]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 SHOULD be accepted coming from any port and responses
SHOULD 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 modify IKE traffic on port 500
in an attempt to transparently establish IPsec connections. 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 all NATs should know run the NAT-friendly protocol.
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.
The IKE responder MUST include in its IKE_SA_INIT response Notify
payloads of type NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP and
NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP. 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.
2.24 ECN Notification
Sections 5.1.2.1 and 5.1.2.2 of [RFC 2401] specify that the IPv4 TOS
octet and IPv6 traffic class octet are to be copied from the inner
header to the outer header by the encapsulator and that the outer
header is to be discarded (no change to inner header) by the
decapsulator. If ECN is in use, ECT codepoints will be copied to the
IKEv2 [Page 35]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
outer header, but if a router within the tunnel changes an ECT
codepoint to a CE codepoint to indicate congestion, that indication
will be discarded by the decapsulator. This behavior is highly
undesirable, and Section 9.2 of [RFC 3168] specifies changes to IPsec
to avoid it. These changes include two ECN operating modes and
negotiation support to detect and cope with IPsec decapsulators that
discard ECN congestion indications; use of ECN in the outer IP header
of IPsec tunnels is not permitted when such discarding is a
possibility.
In order to avoid multiple ECN operating modes and negotiation,
tunnel decapsulators for tunnel-mode Security Associations (SAs)
created by IKEv2 MUST implement the following modifications to
prevent discarding of ECN congestion indications. IKEv2 tunnel- mode
SA negotiation is handled by the USE_TRANSPORT_MODE notify message
type (see Section 5.10.1 of [IKEv2]). The following modifications
*replace* Section 9.2 of RFC 3168 and *update* Sections 5.1.2.1 and
5.1.2.2 of RFC 2401.
Encapsulation and Decapsulation of packets for a tunnel-mode SA
created by IKEv2 MUST NOT follow the modifications specified by
Section 9.2 of RFC 3168 and its subsections. Instead, the following
modifications to encapsulation and decapsulation in Sections 5.1.2.1
and 5.1.2.2 of RFC 2401 MUST be performed:
Outer Hdr at Inner Hdr at
IPv4 Encapsulator Decapsulator
Header fields: -------------------- ------------
DS Field copied from inner hdr (5) no change
ECN Field copied from inner hdr constructed (7)
IPv6
Header fields:
DS Field copied from inner hdr (6) no change
ECN Field copied from inner hdr constructed (7)
(5)(6) If the packet will immediately enter a domain for which the
DSCP value in the outer header is not appropriate, that value MUST
be mapped to an appropriate value for the domain [RFC 2474]. Also
see [RFC 2475] for further information.
(7) If the ECN field in the inner header is set to ECT(0) or
ECT(1) and the ECN field in the outer header is set to CE, then
set the ECN field in the inner header to CE, otherwise make no
change to the ECN field in the inner header.
(5) and (6) are identical to match usage in [RFC2401], although
they are different in [RFC2401]. These actions are not related to
ECN, but are required for Differentiated Services support. They
IKEv2 [Page 36]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
are carried over to this document from RFC 3168 so that all of RFC
3168's changes to IPsec can be made non-applicable to SAs created
by IKEv2.
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.
All multi-octet fields representing integers are laid out in big
endian order (aka most significant byte first, or network byte
order).
IKEv2 [Page 37]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 and MUST NOT be zero in any other message other
than following a cookie request (see section 2.6).
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
version number of received messages.
o Exchange Type (1 octet) - indicates the type of exchange being
used. This dictates the payloads sent in each message and
IKEv2 [Page 38]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
message orderings in the exchanges.
Exchange Type Value
RESERVED 0
Reserved for ISAKMP 1-31
Reserved for IKEv1 32-33
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.
-- X(reserved) (bits 6-7 of Flags) - These bits MUST be
cleared when sending and MUST be ignored on receipt.
IKEv2 [Page 39]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 section 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 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. For an Encrypted payload,
which must always be the last payload of a message, the Next
Payload field is set to the payload type of the first contained
payload.
Payload Type Values
Next Payload Type Value
Security Association (SA) 1
Key Exchange (KE) 4
Initiator Identification (IDi) 5
Certificate (CERT) 6
Certificate Request (CERTREQ) 7
Authentication (AUTH) 9
Nonce (Ni, Nr) 10
IKEv2 [Page 40]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
Notification (N) 11
Delete (D) 12
Vendor ID (V) 13
Initiator Traffic Selector (TSi) 14
Encrypted (E) 15
Configuration (CP) 16
Extended Authentication (EAP) 17
Responder Identication (IDr) 18
Responder Traffic Selector (TSr) 19
Payload type values 20-127 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.
o Payload Length (2 octets) - Length in octets of the current
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 may contain
multiple proposals. Each proposal may contain multiple 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
IKEv2 [Page 41]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 a
SECURITY_PROTOCOL_ID. Each structure MUST have the same Proposal #
as the previous one or one greater. The first Proposal MUST have a
Proposal # of one. 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
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. 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
IKEv2 [Page 42]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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.
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.
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 one (1).
IKEv2 [Page 43]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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, 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.
o Proposal Length (2 octets) - Length of this proposal,
including all transforms and attributes that follow.
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 protocol identifier
for the current negotiation. Zero (0) indicates IKE,
one (1) indicated ESP, and two (2) indicates AH.
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
IKEv2 [Page 44]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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.
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, 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.
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
IKEv2 [Page 45]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 (1 octet) - 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)
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)
values 8-240 are reserved to IANA. Values 241-255 are for
private use among mutually consenting parties.
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_128_CBC 12
ENCR_AES_128_CTR 13
values 13-240 are reserved to IANA. Values 241-255 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
IKEv2 [Page 46]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
PRF_HMAC_MD5 1 (RFC2104)
PRF_HMAC_SHA1 2 (RFC2104)
PRF_HMAC_TIGER 3 (RFC2104)
PRF_AES128_CBC 4
values 4-240 are reserved to IANA. Values 241-255 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)
AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_96 2 (RFC2404)
AUTH_DES_MAC 3
AUTH_KPDK_MD5 4 (RFC1826)
AUTH_AES_XCBC_96 5
For Transform Type 4 (Diffie-Hellman Group), defined Transform IDs
are:
Name Number
NONE 0
Pre-defined (see Appendix B) 1 - 5
RESERVED 6 - 200
MODP (exponentiation) 201 (w/attributes)
ECP (elliptic curve over GF[P] 202 (w/attributes)
EC2N (elliptic curve over GF[2^N]) 203 (w/attributes)
values 6-200 are reserved to IANA for new MODP, ECP or EC2N
groups. Values 204-255 are for private use among mutually
consenting parties. Specification of values 201, 202 or 203
allow peers to define a new Diffie-Hellman group in-line as
part of the exchange. Private use of values 204-255 may entail
complete definition of a group or may require attributes to
accompany them.
For Transform Type 5 (Extended Sequence Numbers), defined Transform
IDs are:
Name Number
No Extended Sequence Numbers 0
Extended Sequence Numbers 1
RESERVED 2 - 255
IKEv2 [Page 47]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
If Transform Type 5 is not included in a proposal, use of
Extended Sequence Numbers is assumed.
3.3.3 Mandatory Transform Types
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 support all
mandatory and optional types for each protocol it supports. Whether
the optional types are present in a particular proposal depends
solely on the discretion of the sender.
Protocol Mandatory Types Optional Types
IKE 1, 2, 3, 4
ESP 1 3, 4, 5
AH 3 4, 5
3.3.4 Mandatory Transform IDs
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.
The previously-MUST ciphersuites (3DES/HMAC_SHA1/DH Group 2) are
based on currently-deployed hardware that meets the security
requirements of the vast majority of current IPsec users, and should
be useful for at least a decade according to cryptographic estimates
from NIST for business user scenarios. The previously-SHOULD
ciphersuites (AES/HMAC_SHA1/DH Group 5) are based on expectations of
where the security industry is moving (namely, to the AES encryption
suite) and where more security-conscious users are moving as current
key lengths become more attackable due to the steady lowering of cost
to mount brute-force attacks.
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, longer Diffie-Hellman keys, 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
IKEv2 [Page 48]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 the form of
type/length/value.
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.
IKEv2 [Page 49]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 while quite a few attribute types are defined, the only
algorithms defined in this document that accept attributes are the
defined on the fly Diffie-Hellman groups, whose use is optional and
likely unusual. An IKEv2 implementation MAY ignore attributes if it
does not support any algorithms that use them.
Attributes described as basic MUST NOT be encoded as variable.
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 0-5
Group Prime/Irreducible Polynomial 6 TLV
Group Generator One 7 TLV
Group Generator Two 8 TLV
Group Curve A 9 TLV
Group Curve B 10 TLV
RESERVED 11-13
Key Length 14 TV
Field Size 15 TV
Group Order 16 TLV
Block Size 17 TV
values 0-5, 11-13, and 18-16383 are reserved to IANA. Values
16384-32767 are for private use among mutually consenting parties.
- Group Prime/Irreducible Polynomial
The prime number of a MODP Diffie-Hellman group or the irreducible
polynomial of an elliptic curve when specifying a private Diffie-
Hellman group.
- Generator One, Generator Two
The X- and Y-coordinate of a point on an elliptic curve. When the
IKEv2 [Page 50]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
Y-coordinate (generator two) is not given it can be computed with
the X-coordinate and the definition of the curve.
- Curve A, Curve B
Coefficients from the definition of an elliptic curve:
y^2 + xy = x^3 + (curve A)x^2 + (curve B)
- 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.
- Field Size
The field size, in bits, of a Diffie-Hellman group.
- Group Order
The group order of an elliptic curve group. Note the length of
this attribute depends on the field size.
- Block Size
The number of bits per block of a cipher with a variable block
length.
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.
Diffie-Hellman groups are specified either using a defined group
description (see Appendix B) or by defining all attributes of a group
in an IKE policy offer. Group attributes, such as group type or prime
IKEv2 [Page 51]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
number MUST NOT be offered in conjunction with a previously defined
group. SA offers include proposed attributes and a Diffie-Hellman
public number (KE) in the same message. If 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 in the third message.
If the Initiator guesses wrong in a CREATE_CHILD_SA negotiation, no
SA is created and the Initiator SHOULD retry with the correct group.
Implementation Note:
Certain negotiable attributes can have ranges or could have
multiple acceptable values. These are the Diffie-Hellman group and
the key length of a variable key length symmetric cipher. To
further interoperability 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 an implementation SHOULD accept the offer.
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 foo".
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
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 (MBZ) !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Key Exchange Data ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Key Exchange Payload Format
IKEv2 [Page 52]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
A key exchange payload is constructed by copying ones 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. 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 four (4).
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 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.
IKEv2 [Page 53]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 five (5) for IDi
and eighteen (18) 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
------- -----
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, "lounge.org". 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, "lizard@lounge.org". 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 an account
IKEv2 [Page 54]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
name or to pass vendor-specific information necessary to do
certain proprietary forms of identification.
Two implementations will interoperate only if each can generate a
form 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 forms. Implementations
SHOULD be capable of generating and accepting all of these forms.
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.
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
IKEv2 [Page 55]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 PKIX certificate 12
Hash and URL of PKIX bundle 13
RESERVED 14 - 200
PRIVATE USE 201 - 255
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 six (6).
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.
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 of PKIX certificate (12) contains a 20 octet SHA-1
hash of a PKIX certificate followed by a variable length URL that
resolves to the BER encoded certificate itself.
Hash and URL of PKIX bundle (13) contains a 20 octet SHA-1 hash of
a PKIX certificate bundle followed by a variable length URL the
resolves to the BER encoded certificate bundle itself. The bundle
is a BER encoded SEQUENCE of certificates and CRLs.
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 two Hash and URL formats. If multiple
certificates are sent, the first certificate MUST contain the public
key used to sign the AUTH payload.
IKEv2 [Page 56]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 second and/or third message of the initial exchanges.
Certificate Request payloads SHOULD be included in an exchange
whenever the peer may have multiple certificates, some of which might
be trusted while others are not or when multiple formats might be
acceptable. If multiple root CAs are trusted, then multiple
Certificate Request payloads SHOULD be transmitted.
Empty (zero length) CA names MUST NOT be generated and SHOULD be
ignored.
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 seven (7).
The Certificate Encoding field has the same values as those defined
in section 3.6. The value field contains an indicator of trusted
authorities for this certificate type. For certificate encoding four
(4) (X.509 signing certificate), the CA value is a concatenated list
of SHA-1 hashes of the public keys of trusted root CAs.
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
IKEv2 [Page 57]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
Request Payload.
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 the specified certification authority. This
can be a chain of certificates. If a certificate exists which
satisfies the criteria specified in the Certificate Request Payload
it MUST be sent back to the certificate requestor; if a certificate
chain exists which goes back to the certification authority specified
in the request the entire chain SHOULD be sent back to the
certificate requestor. If no certificates exist then no further
processing is performed-- this is not an error condition of the
protocol. There may be cases where there is a preferred CA, 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 the 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
IKEv2 [Page 58]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 nine (9).
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 ten (10).
The size of a Nonce MUST be between 8 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
IKEv2 [Page 59]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
message to indicate sender capabilities or to modify the meaning of
the request.
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 !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! S_Protocol_ID ! SPI Size ! Notify Message Type !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Security Parameter Index (SPI) ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Notification Data ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16: Notification Payload Format
o SECURITY_PROTOCOL_ID (1 octet) - Specifies the protocol about
which
this notification is being sent. For IKE_SA notifications,
this field MUST be one (1). For notifications
concerning IPsec SAs this field will contain either (2)
to indicate AH or (3) to indicate ESP. For notifications
for which no protocol ID is relevant, this field MUST be
sent as zero and MUST be ignored. 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 SECURITY_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 message specific, see below.
The payload type for the Notification Payload is eleven (11).
IKEv2 [Page 60]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 simplication 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 recognise in a response MUST assume that the
corresponding request has failed entirely. Unrecognised 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 recognised. 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 recognised. 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 [Page 61]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 codes. 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 if
sent 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.
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
unacceptable because the Responder is willing to accept
traffic selectors specifying a single pair of addresses.
The Initiator is expected to respond by requesting an SA for
only the specific traffic he is trying to forward.
NO_ADDITIONAL_SAS 35
IKEv2 [Page 62]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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.
RESERVED TO IANA - Errors 39 - 8191
Private Use - Errors 8192 - 16383
NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Value
------------------------------ -----
RESERVED TO IANA - STATUS 16384 - 24577
INITIAL_CONTACT 24578
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 24579
IKEv2 [Page 63]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 represention of the number of
messages the sender promises to keep. Window size is always
one until the initial exchanges complete.
ADDITIONAL_TS_POSSIBLE 24580
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. 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 24581
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.
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
values 4-240 are reserved to IANA. Values 241-255 are
for private use among mutually consenting parties.
NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP 24582
This notification is used to 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, IP
IKEv2 [Page 64]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 24583
This notification is used to 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, 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 this check fails, it means that this end is behind
a NAT and that therefore this end should perform NAT
specific processing. Alternately, it MAY reject the
connection attempt if NAT traversal is not supported.
COOKIE 24584
This notification MAY be included in an IKE_SA_INIT
response. It indicates that the request should be retried
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 24585
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 can
still be established, but will use 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.
HTTP_CERT_LOOKUP_SUPPORTED 24586
IKEv2 [Page 65]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
This notification MAY be included 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 presumeably would prefer to receive
certificate specifications in that format).
RESERVED TO IANA - STATUS 24587 - 40959
Private Use - STATUS 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 SECURITY_PROTOCOL_ID of 1
(IKE) but no SPIs. Deletion of a CHILD_SA, such as ESP or AH, will
contain the SECURITY_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 !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! S_PROTOCOL_ID ! SPI Size ! # of SPIs !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Security Parameter Index(es) (SPI) ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 17: Delete Payload Format
o SECURITY_PROTOCOL_ID (1 octet) - Must be 1 for an IKE_SA, 2
for AH, or 3 for ESP.
IKEv2 [Page 66]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
o SPI Size (1 octet) - Length in octets of the SPI as defined by
the SECURITY_PROTOCOL_ID. 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.
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 twelve (12).
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. If parameter
values "reserved for use by consenting parties" are used, they must
be preceded by a Vendor ID payload that disambiguates them. 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.
IKEv2 [Page 67]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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
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 thirteen (13).
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 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
IKEv2 [Page 68]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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.
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 fourteen (14)
for TSi and nineteen (19) for TSr.
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 ! Protocol_ID | Selector Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start_Port | End_Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Starting Address ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ Ending Address ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 20: Traffic Selector
o TS Type (one octet) - Specifies the type of traffic selector.
o Protocol ID (1 octet) - Value specifying an associated IP
protocol ID (e.g. UDP/TCP). 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 by
this Traffic Selector, this field MUST be zero.
IKEv2 [Page 69]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
o End_Port (2 octets) - Value specifying the largest port
number allowed by this Traffic Selector. For protocols for
which port is undefined, or it all ports are allowed by
this Traffic Selector, this field MUST be 65535.
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).
The following table lists the assigned values for the Traffic
Selector Type field and the corresponding Address Selector Data.
TS Type Value
------- -----
RESERVED 0
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.
3.14 Encrypted Payload
The Encrypted Payload, denoted SK{...} in this memo, contains other
payloads in encrypted form. The Encrpted 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 modelled after
the ESP algorithms described in RFCs 2104, 2406, 2451. This document
completely specifies the cryptographic processing of IKE data, but
IKEv2 [Page 70]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 fifteen (15). The
Encrypted Payload consists of the IKE generic 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.
Since the Encrypted payload must be last in a message, there
is no need to specify a payload type for a payload beyond it.
o Payload Length - Includes the lengths of the IV, Padding, and
Authentication 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
IKEv2 [Page 71]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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.
3.15 Configuration Payload
The Configuration payload, denoted CP in this document, is used to
exchange configuration information between IKE peers. Currently, the
only defined uses for this exchange is for an IRAC to request an
internal IP address from an IRAS or for either party to request
version information from the other, but this payload is intended as a
likely place for future extensions.
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
CFG_REPLY or CFG_ACK or a Notify payload with an error code
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 recognise.
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.
IKEv2 [Page 72]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 recognised or not
supported, the responder MUST NOT return an error code 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 recognised 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
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.
IKEv2 [Page 73]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 16.
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.
o Configuration Attribute (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 [Page 74]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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.
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 16 octets
INTERNAL_IP6_NETMASK 9 NO 0 or 16 octets
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 [Page 75]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 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, INTERNAL_IP6_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_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.
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.
IKEv2 [Page 76]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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-mask 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
The payload type for an EAP Payload is 17.
IKEv2 [Page 77]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 types, 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 form of authentication the
Initiator would prefer to use. For most other responses, it
contains the authentication code typed by the human user.
Note that since IKE passes an indication of initiator identity in
message 3 of the protocol, EAP based prompts for Identity SHOULD NOT
IKEv2 [Page 78]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 preventing the bad guys from
interoperating with one's systems. 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 forms 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
minimal implementation MAY respond to any INFORMATIONAL message with
an empty INFORMATIONAL reply. A minimal implementation MAY support
IKEv2 [Page 79]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange only in so far as to recognise 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 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 recognise 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 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 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.
Shared key authentication where the ID passes is any of ID_KEY_ID,
ID_FQDN, or ID_RFC822_ADDR.
Authentication where the responder authenticates using PKIX
IKEv2 [Page 80]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
Certificates and the initiator authenticates using shared key
authentication.
5 Security Considerations
Repeated re-keying using CREATE_CHILD_SA without PFS leave 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 sufficient
for use with 3DES. Groups three through five provide greater
security. 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
conservative estimates when establishing policy and negotiating
security parameters.
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 never be used with this
protocol.
Note that these limitations are on the Diffie-Hellman groups
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 the Diffie-Hellman exponents in this exchange 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 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 [RFC1715]). Implementors should take care to ensure that use of
IKEv2 [Page 81]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
random numbers for both keys and nonces is engineered in a fashion
that does not undermine the security of the keys.
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
from the IKE peer. As the IPv4 address space is only 32 bits, and it
is usually very sparse, it might be possible for the 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 limits the hash calculations down to 2^32. If
educated guess of use of private address space is done, then the
number of hash calculations needed to find out the internal IP
address goes down to the 2^24 + 2 * (2^16).
6 IANA Considerations
This document contains many "magic numbers" to be maintained by the
IANA. This section explains the criteria to be used by the IANA to
assign additional numbers in each of these lists.
Cryptographic Algorithm types, codes, and attributes
Error Codes
Status Codes
IPcomp Transform IDs
Configuration request types
Configuration attribute types
Payload Types
IKE Exchange Types
Values of the Cryptographic Suite-ID define a set of cryptographic
algorithms to be used in an IKE, ESP, or AH SA. Requests for
assignment of new values must be accompanied by a reference to an RFC
that describes how to use these algorithms.
This memo defines four exchange types for use with IKEv2. Requests
for assignment of new exchange types MUST be accompanied by an RFC
which defines the following:
- the purpose of and need for the new exchange.
- the payloads (mandatory and optional) that accompany
messages in the exchange.
IKEv2 [Page 82]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
- when the exchange may take place.
- requirements the new exchange has on existing
exchanges which have assigned numbers.
Payloads are defined in this memo to convey information between
peers. New payloads may be required when defining a new
authentication method or exchange. Requests for new payload types
MUST be accompanied by an RFC which defines the physical layout of
the payload and the fields it contains. All payloads MUST use the
same generic header defined in Figure 5.
7 Intellectual Property Rights
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
rights.
8 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. 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.
9 References
9.1 Normative References
[Bra96] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[Bra97] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[EAP] Blunk, L. and Volibrecht, J., "PPP Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP), RFC 2284, March 1998.
IKEv2 [Page 83]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
[ESPCBC] Pereira, R., Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
Algorithms",
RFC 2451, November 1998.
9.2 Non-normative References
[Ble98] Bleichenbacher, D., "Chosen Ciphertext Attacks against
Protocols Based on RSA Encryption Standard PKCS#1", Advances
in Cryptology Eurocrypt '98, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
[BR94] Bellare, M., and Rogaway P., "Optimal Asymmetric
Encryption", Advances in Cryptology Eurocrypt '94,
Springer-Verlag, 1994.
[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.
[HC98] Harkins, D., Carrel, D., "The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)",
RFC 2409, November 1998.
[Hutt02] Huttunen, A. et. al., "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec Packets",
draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-05.txt, December 2002.
[IDEA] Lai, X., "On the Design and Security of Block Ciphers," ETH
Series in Information Processing, v. 1, Konstanz: Hartung-
Gorre Verlag, 1992
[Ker01] Keronytis, A., Sommerfeld, B., "The 'Suggested ID' Extension
for IKE", draft-keronytis-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)", RFC2251
IKEv2 [Page 84]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
[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", RFC2367, 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
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)", RFC2138
[RFC1715]
[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.
[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", Nov. 2002.
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.
IKEv2 [Page 85]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 [Page 86]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
11) To incorporate ideas from draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-reqts-02.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 [Page 87]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
Appendix B: Diffie-Hellman Groups
There are 5 groups different Diffie-Hellman groups defined 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].
Future IANA-registered and private use Suite-IDs MAY use Diffie-
Hellman groups that have modulus values and generators that are
different than those in this document or in [ADDGROUP].
B.1 Group 1 - 768 Bit MODP
IKE implementations MAY support a MODP group with the following prime
and generator. 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
IKE implementations SHOULD support a MODP group with the following
prime and generator. This group is assigned id 2 (two).
IKEv2 [Page 88]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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
IKE implementations MAY support a EC2N group with the following
characteristics. 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.
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
IKE implementations MAY support a EC2N group with the following
characteristics. 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.
IKEv2 [Page 89]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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).
B.5 Group 5 - 1536 Bit MODP
IKE implementations MUST support a MODP group with the following
prime and generator. This group is assigned id 5 (five).
The prime is 2^1536 - 2^1472 - 1 + 2^64 * {[2^1406 pi] + 741804}.
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 ECE45B3D C2007CB8 A163BF05 98DA4836 1C55D39A 69163FA8
FD24CF5F 83655D23 DCA3AD96 1C62F356 208552BB 9ED52907 7096966D
670C354E 4ABC9804 F1746C08 CA237327 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF
The generator is 2.
IKEv2 [Page 90]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
Change History
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 idiosyncracies 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
expontentials
IKEv2 [Page 91]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 negotation 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 [Page 92]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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 [Page 93]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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.
Editor's Address
Charlie Kaufman
charlie_kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com
IBM
Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
IKEv2 [Page 94]
INTERNET DRAFT April 2003
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."
IKEv2 [Page 95]