NVO3 | D. Migault |
Internet-Draft | June 28, 2017 |
Intended status: Standards Track | |
Expires: December 30, 2017 |
Geneve Header Encryption Option (GEO)
draft-mglt-nvo3-geneve-encryption-option-00
This document describes the Geneve Encryption Option (GEO). This option enables a Geneve forwarding element to encrypt the Geneve Header with selected associated Geneve Options as well as a portion of the Geneve Payload.
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 December 30, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2017 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.
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 [RFC2119].
For generic format of the Geneve Options is defined in Figure 1. The following values are expected:
0 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Class | Type |R|R|R| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Variable Option Data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Geneve Option Format
0 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | GEO-ID | Covered Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | ICV 128/256 bits 16 | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Geneve Encryption Data
[ Geneve Encryption Option -----+ | | Covered Length <-------------------> v <--------------------> +---------------------+-------------+-----+------------+----------------+ | Geneve Fixed Header | Geneve Opt. | GEO | Geneve Opt.| Geneve Payload | +---------------------+-------------+-----+------------+----------------+ <--------+----------> <---------+-------> <----------+---------> <-+--> | | xxxx encrypted xxxxx | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | Fields covered | | by the encryption +----------------------------------+ Fields not covered by the encryption
Figure 3: Geneve Encryption Options Placement
GEO is a termination Geneve Option. The encrypted Geneve Options and portion of the encrypted Geneve Payload are appended to the Geneve Header. They are not encoded as an Geneve Option.
There are no IANA consideration for this document.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-encap] | Boutros, S., Ganga, I., Garg, P., Manur, R., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D. and E. Nordmark, "NVO3 Encapsulation Considerations", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00, June 2017. |
[I-D.mglt-nvo3-geneve-security-architecture] | Migault, D., "Geneve Security Architecture", July 2017. |
[I-D.mglt-nvo3-security-requirements] | Migault, D., "Geneve Security Requirements", July 2017. |
[RFC7364] | Narten, T., Gray, E., Black, D., Fang, L., Kreeger, L. and M. Napierala, "Problem Statement: Overlays for Network Virtualization", RFC 7364, DOI 10.17487/RFC7364, October 2014. |
[RFC7539] | Nir, Y. and A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF Protocols", RFC 7539, DOI 10.17487/RFC7539, May 2015. |