TOC |
|
This document describes an extension to the IKEv2 protocol that allows the synchronization of IKEv2/IPsec SA counters between the peers.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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.”
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
1.
Introduction
2.
Terminology
3.
Issues solved from IPsec Cluster Problem Statement
4.
IKEv2/IPsec SA Counter Synchronization Problem
5.
IKEv2/IPsec SA Counter Synchronization Solution
6.
SA counter synchronization notify and payload types
7.
Details of implementation
8.
Security Considerations
9.
Interaction with other drafts
10.
IANA Considerations
11.
Acknowledgements
12.
Normative References
§
Author's Address
TOC |
IKEv2 and IPsec Protocols are used in delpoying VPN. But the protocols are prone to certain issues which make them bring down the SA's in case of Clusters, which is not desirable.The draft [IPsec Cluster Problem Statement] (Nir, Y., “IPsec Cluster Problem Statement,” July 2010.) enumerates all the issues encountered in IKEv2 and IPsec in HA cluster environment.This draft solves the main issues and gives implementation advice for others.
TOC |
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].
"Hot Standby Cluster", or "HS Cluster" is a cluster where only one of the members is active at any one time. This member is also referred to as the "active", whereas the other(s) are referred to as "standbys". VRRP ([RFC5798]) is one method of building such a cluster. The goal of Hot Standby Cluster is that it creates illusion of single virtual gateway to the peer(s).
"Active Member" is the primary member in the Hot Standby cluster. It is responsible for forwarding packets for the virtual gateway.
"Standby Member" is the primary backup router. The member takes control i.e. becomes active member after the "failvover" event.
"Peer" is the IKEv2/IPsec endpoint which establishes VPN connection with Hot Standby cluster. The Peer knows Hot Standby Cluster by single cluster's IP address. In case of "failover", the standby member of the cluster becomes active, so the peer normally doesn't notice that "failover" has occured in the cluster.
"SA Counter SYNC Request" is the information exchange request defined in this draft to synchronize the IKEv2/IPsec SA counter information between member of the cluster and the peer.
"SA Counter SYNC Response" is the information exchange response defined in this draft to synchronize the IKEv2/IPsec SA counter information between member of the cluster and the peer.
TOC |
IPsec Cluster Problem Statement defines the problems encountered in IPsec Clusters. The problems along with their section names as given in the statement is as follows.
This draft solves the main issues using the protocol extention, and provides implementation advice for other issues, given as follows.
TOC |
IKEv2 RFC states that "An IKE endpoint MUST NOT exceed the peer's stated window size for transmitted IKE requests".
As per the protocol, all IKEv2 packets follows request-response paradigm. The initiator of an IKEv2 request MUST retrssansmit the request, until it has received a response from the peer. IKEv2 introduces a windowing mechanism that allows multiple requests to be outstanding at a given point of time, but mandates that the sender window does not move until the oldest message sent from one peer to another is acknowledged. Loss of even a single packet leads to repeated retransmissions followed by an IKEv2 SA teardown if the retransmissions are unacknowledged.
IPsec Hot Standby Cluster is required to ensure that in case of failover of active member, the standby member becomes active immediately. The standby member is expected to have the exact values of message id fields of active member before failover. Even with the best efforts to update the message Id values from active to standby member, the values at standby member can be stale due to following reasons:
When a standby member takes over as the active member, it would start the message id ranges from previously updated values. This would make it reject requests from the peer, since the values would be stale. As a sender, the standby member may end up reusing a stale message id which will cause the peer to drop the request. Eventually there is a high probability of the IKEv2 and corresponding IPsec SAs getting torn down simply because of a transitory message id mismatch and re-transmission of requests. This is not a desirable feature of HA. Even after updating standby memeber periodically the cluster can loose IKE and so all IPsec SA due to message id i.e. SA counter mismatch.
Hence a mechanism is required in HA to ensure that the standby member has correct values of message Id values, so that sessions are not torn down just because of window ranges.
Similar issue is observed in IPsec counters also.
TOC |
After the standby member becomes the active member after failover event in the cluster, the standby member would send an authenticated IKEv2 request to the peer to send its values of SA counters.
The standby member would then update its values of SA counters and then start sending/receiving the requests.
The peer MUST negotiate its ability to support SA counter synchronization information with active member by sending the SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO_SUPPORTED notification in IKE_AUTH exchange.
Peer Active Member - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HDR, SK {IDi, [CERT], [CERTREQ], [IDr], AUTH, N[SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO_SUPPORTED], SAi2, TSi, TSr} ----------> <---------- HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT+], [CERTREQ+], AUTH, N[SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO_SUPPORTED], SAr2, TSi, TSr}
When peer and active member both supports SA counter synchronization, the active member MUST sync/update SA counter synchronization capability to the standby member after the establishment of the IKE SA. So that standby member is aware of the capability and can use it when it becomes the active member after failover event.
After failover event, when the standby member becomes the active member, it has to request the peer for the SA counters. Standby member would initiate the SYNC Request with an INFORMATIONAL exchange containing the notify SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO. The SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO information can be used for update IKEv2 counters i.e. message ids and also IPsec SA replay counters.
The peer will respond back with the notify SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO. The SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO request contains NONCE data to avoid DOS attack due to replay of SA counter sync response. The Nonce data send in SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO response MUST match with nonce data sent by newly-active member in SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO request. If nonce data received in SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO response does not match with nonce data sent in SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO request, the standby i.e. newly-active member MUST discard this SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO response, and normal IKEv2 behaviour of re-transmitting the request and waiting for genuine reply from the peer SHOULD follow, before tearing down the SA becuase of re-transmits.
Standby [Newly Active] Member Peer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HDR, SK {N[SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO]+} --------> <--------- HDR, SK {N[SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO]+}
TOC |
Below are the new notify and payload types that are defined
1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Next Payload |C| RESERVED | Payload Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Protocol ID(=0)| SPI Size (=0) | Notify Message Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO_SUPPORTED |
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 |M| RESERVED | Payload Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Protocol ID | SPI Size | # of SPI's |Counter Size | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ ~ | | ~ Nonce Data ~ | | ~ ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | EXPECTED_SEND_REQ_MESSAGE_ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | EXPECTED_RECV_REQ_MESSAGE_ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SPI | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Last Counter ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO |
TOC |
The message Id used in this exchange MUST be zero so that it is not vaildated upon receipt. Message Id zero MUST be permitted only for informational exchange that would have NOTIFY of type SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO. If any packet uses the message Id Zero, without having this Notify along with the Nonce payload, then such packets MUST be discarded upon decryption. No other payloads are allowed in this Informational exchange.
The standby member can initiate this Exchange
Since there can be many sessions at Standby member, and sending exchanges from all of the sessions can cause throttling, the standby member can choose to initiate the exchange when it has to send or receive the request. Thus the trigger to initiate this exchange depends on the requirement/discretion of the standby member.
The member which has not announced its capability SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO_SUPPORTED MUST NOT send/receive the notify SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO.
If a peer gets SYNC_SA_COUNTER_INFO request even though it did not announce its capability in IKE_AUTH exchange, then it MUST ignore this message.
TOC |
There can be two types of DOS attacks.
TOC |
The primary assumption of IKEv2/IPsec SA Counter Synchronization prososal is IKE SA has established between active member of Hot Standby Cluster and peer, after that the failover event occurred and now standby member has "become" active. It also assumes the IKE SA state was synced between active and standby member of the Hot Standby Cluster before the failover event.
TOC |
This document introduces two new IKEv2 Notification Message types as described in Section 5.The new Notify Message Types must be assigned values between 16396 and 40959.
TOC |
This draft is the combined effort of HA Design team which consists of the following members (in alphabetical order) Dacheng Zhang, Min Huang, Raj Singh, Yaron Sheffer and Yoav Nir. I would like to thank Pratima Sethi and Frederic Detienne for their valuable reviews and suggestions.
TOC |
[IKEv2bis] | Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, “Internet Key Exchange Protocol: IKEv2,” draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis (work in progress), May 2010 (TXT, HTML). |
[IPsec Cluster Problem Statement] | Nir, Y., “IPsec Cluster Problem Statement,” July 2010. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
[RFC5685] | Devarapalli, V. and K. Weniger, “Redirect Mechanism for IKEv2,” RFC 5685, November 2009 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
[RFC5723] | Sheffer, Y. and H. Tschofenig, “IKEv2 Session Resumption,” RFC 5723, January 2010 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
TOC |
Kalyani Garigipati | |
Cisco Systems, Inc. | |
SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park | |
Bangalore, Karnataka 560025 | |
India | |
Phone: | +91 80 4426 4831 |
Email: | kagarigi@cisco.com |