Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps
Network Working Group M. Tuexen
Internet-Draft Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
Intended status: Standards Track R. Stewart
Expires: July 28, 2015 Netflix, Inc.
R. Jesup
WorldGate Communications
S. Loreto
Ericsson
January 24, 2015
DTLS Encapsulation of SCTP Packets
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-09.txt
Abstract
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is a transport
protocol originally defined to run on top of the network protocols
IPv4 or IPv6. This document specifies how SCTP can be used on top of
the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. Using the
encapsulation method described in this document, SCTP is unaware of
the protocols being used below DTLS; hence explicit IP addresses
cannot be used in the SCTP control chunks. As a consequence, the
SCTP associations carried over DTLS can only be single homed.
Status of This Memo
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 July 28, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
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.
Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Encapsulation and Decapsulation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. DTLS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. SCTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. NOTE to the RFC-Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Overview
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) as defined in
[RFC4960] is a transport protocol running on top of the network
protocols IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 [RFC2460]. This document specifies
how SCTP is used on top of the Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) protocol. DTLS 1.0 is defined in [RFC4347] and the latest
version when this RFC was published, DTLS 1.2, is defined in
[RFC6347]. This encapsulation is used for example within the WebRTC
protocol suite (see [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] for an overview) for
transporting non-SRTP data between browsers. The architecture of
this stack is described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel].
[NOTE to RFC-Editor:
Please ensure that the authors double check the above statement
about DTLS 1.2 during AUTH48 and then remove this note before
publication.
]
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
+----------+
| SCTP |
+----------+
| DTLS |
+----------+
| ICE/UDP |
+----------+
Figure 1: Basic stack diagram
This encapsulation of SCTP over DTLS over UDP or ICE/UDP (see
[RFC5245]) can provide a NAT traversal solution in addition to
confidentiality, source authentication, and integrity protected
transfers. Please note that using ICE does not necessarily imply
that a different packet format is used on the wire.
Please note that the procedures defined in [RFC6951] for dealing with
the UDP port numbers do not apply here. When using the encapsulation
defined in this document, SCTP is unaware about the protocols used
below DTLS.
2. Conventions
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].
3. Encapsulation and Decapsulation Procedure
When an SCTP packet is provided to the DTLS layer, the complete SCTP
packet, consisting of the SCTP common header and a number of SCTP
chunks, is handled as the payload of the application layer protocol
of DTLS. When the DTLS layer has processed a DTLS record containing
a message of the application layer protocol, the payload is passed to
the SCTP layer. The SCTP layer expects an SCTP common header
followed by a number of SCTP chunks.
4. General Considerations
An implementation of SCTP over DTLS MUST implement and use a path
maximum transmission unit (MTU) discovery method that functions
without ICMP to provide SCTP/DTLS with an MTU estimate. An
implementation of "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821]
either in SCTP or DTLS is RECOMMENDED.
The path MTU discovery is performed by SCTP when SCTP over DTLS is
used for data channels (see Section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]).
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
5. DTLS Considerations
The DTLS implementation MUST support DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and SHOULD
support the most recently published version of DTLS, which was DTLS
1.2 [RFC6347] when this RFC was published. In the absence of a
revision to this document, the latter requirement applies to all
future versions of DTLS when they are published as RFCs. This
document will only be revised if a revision to DTLS or SCTP makes a
revision to the encapsulation necessary.
[NOTE to RFC-Editor:
Please ensure that the authors double check the above statement
about DTLS 1.2 during AUTH48 and then remove this note before
publication.
]
SCTP performs segmentation and reassembly based on the path MTU.
Therefore the DTLS layer MUST NOT use any compression algorithm.
The DTLS MUST support sending messages larger than the current path
MTU. This might result in sending IP level fragmented messages.
If path MTU discovery is performed by the DTLS layer, the method
described in [RFC4821] MUST be used. For probe packets, the
extension defined in [RFC6520] MUST be used.
If path MTU discovery is performed by the SCTP layer and IPv4 is used
as the network layer protocol, the DTLS implementation SHOULD allow
the DTLS user to enforce that the corresponding IPv4 packet is sent
with the Don't Fragment (DF) bit set. If controlling the DF bit is
not possible, for example due to implementation restrictions, a safe
value for the path MTU has to be used by the SCTP stack. It is
RECOMMENDED that the safe value does not exceed 1200 bytes. Please
note that [RFC1122] only requires end hosts to be able to reassemble
fragmented IP packets up to 576 bytes in length.
The DTLS implementation SHOULD allow the DTLS user to set the
Differentiated services code point (DSCP) used for IP packets being
sent (see [RFC2474]). This requires the DTLS implementation to pass
the value through and the lower layer to allow setting this value.
If the lower layer does not support setting the DSCP, then the DTLS
user will end up with the default value used by protocol stack.
Please note that only a single DSCP value can be used for all packets
belonging to the same SCTP association.
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
Using explicit congestion notifications (ECN) in SCTP requires the
DTLS layer to pass the ECN bits through and its lower layer to expose
access to them for sent and received packets (see [RFC3168]). The
implementation of DTLS and its lower layer have to provide this
support. If this is not possible, for example due to implementation
restrictions, ECN can't be used by SCTP.
6. SCTP Considerations
This section describes the usage of the base protocol and the
applicability of various SCTP extensions.
6.1. Base Protocol
This document uses SCTP [RFC4960] with the following restrictions,
which are required to reflect that the lower layer is DTLS instead of
IPv4 and IPv6 and that SCTP does not deal with the IP addresses or
the transport protocol used below DTLS:
o A DTLS connection MUST be established before an SCTP association
can be set up.
o Multiple SCTP associations MAY be multiplexed over a single DTLS
connection. The SCTP port numbers are used for multiplexing and
demultiplexing the SCTP associations carried over a single DTLS
connection.
o All SCTP associations are single-homed, because DTLS does not
expose any address management to its upper layer. Therefore it is
RECOMMENDED to set the SCTP parameter path.max.retrans to
association.max.retrans.
o The INIT and INIT-ACK chunk MUST NOT contain any IPv4 Address or
IPv6 Address parameters. The INIT chunk MUST NOT contain the
Supported Address Types parameter.
o The implementation MUST NOT rely on processing ICMP or ICMPv6
packets, since the SCTP layer most likely is unable to access the
SCTP common header in the plain text of the packet, which
triggered the sending of the ICMP or ICMPv6 packet. This applies
in particular to path MTU discovery when performed by SCTP.
o If the SCTP layer is notified about a path change by its lower
layers, SCTP SHOULD retest the Path MTU and reset the congestion
state to the initial state. The window-based congestion control
method specified in [RFC4960], resets the congestion window and
slow start threshold to their initial values.
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
6.2. Padding Extension
When the SCTP layer performs path MTU discovery as specified in
[RFC4821], the padding extension defined in [RFC4820] MUST be
supported and used for probe packets (HEARTBEAT chunks bundled with
PADDING chunks [RFC4820]).
6.3. Dynamic Address Reconfiguration Extension
If the dynamic address reconfiguration extension defined in [RFC5061]
is used, ASCONF chunks MUST use wildcard addresses only.
6.4. SCTP Authentication Extension
The SCTP authentication extension defined in [RFC4895] can be used
with DTLS encapsulation, but does not provide any additional benefit.
6.5. Partial Reliability Extension
Partial reliability as defined in [RFC3758] can be used in
combination with DTLS encapsulation. It is also possible to use
additional PR-SCTP policies, for example the ones defined in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies].
6.6. Stream Reset Extension
The SCTP stream reset extension defined in [RFC6525] can be used with
DTLS encapsulation. It is used to reset SCTP streams and add SCTP
streams during the lifetime of the SCTP association.
6.7. Interleaving of Large User Messages
SCTP as defined in [RFC4960] does not support the interleaving of
large user messages that need to be fragmented and reassembled by the
SCTP layer. The protocol extension defined in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] overcomes this limitation and can be used
with DTLS encapsulation.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requires no actions from IANA.
8. Security Considerations
Security considerations for DTLS are specified in [RFC4347] and for
SCTP in [RFC4960], [RFC3758], and [RFC6525]. The combination of SCTP
and DTLS introduces no new security considerations.
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
SCTP should not process the IP addresses used for the underlying
communication since DTLS provides no guarantees about them.
It should be noted that the inability to process ICMP or ICMPv6
messages does not add any security issue. When SCTP is carried over
a connection-less lower layer like IPv4, IPv6, or UDP, processing of
these messages is required to protect other nodes not supporting
SCTP. Since DTLS provides a connection-oriented lower layer, this
kind of protection is not necessary.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank David Black, Benoit Claise, Spencer
Dawkins, Francis Dupont, Gorry Fairhurst, Stephen Farrell, Christer
Holmberg, Barry Leiba, Eric Rescorla, Tom Taylor, Joe Touch and
Magnus Westerlund for their invaluable comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.
[RFC4820] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., and P. Lei, "Padding Chunk and
Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)", RFC 4820, March 2007.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
4960, September 2007.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
[RFC6520] Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport
Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", RFC 6520, February 2012.
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
10.2. Informative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December
1998.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
3168, September 2001.
[RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.
[RFC4895] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla,
"Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4895, August 2007.
[RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M.
Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061, September
2007.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April
2010.
[RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration", RFC
6525, February 2012.
[RFC6951] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host
to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951, May 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]
Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for
Browser-based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-13
(work in progress), November 2014.
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in
progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies]
Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and S. Loreto,
"Additional Policies for the Partial Reliability Extension
of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-
tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-06 (work in progress), December
2014.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata]
Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
"Stream Schedulers and a New Data Chunk for the Stream
Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
ndata-02 (work in progress), January 2015.
Appendix A. NOTE to the RFC-Editor
Although the references to [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies] and
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] are informative, put this document in
REF-HOLD until these two references have been approved and update
these references to the corresponding RFCs.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Tuexen
Muenster University of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstrasse 39
48565 Steinfurt
DE
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Randall R. Stewart
Netflix, Inc.
Chapin, SC 29036
US
Email: randall@lakerest.net
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCTP over DTLS January 2015
Randell Jesup
WorldGate Communications
3800 Horizon Blvd, Suite #103
Trevose, PA 19053-4947
US
Phone: +1-215-354-5166
Email: randell_ietf@jesup.org
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
FI
Email: Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com
Tuexen, et al. Expires July 28, 2015 [Page 10]
