Internet DRAFT - draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info
draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info
Network A. Antony
Internet-Draft secunet
Intended status: Standards Track P. Kerpan
Expires: 25 April 2024 Cohesive Networks
P. Wouters
Aiven
23 October 2023
IKEv2 support for specifying a Delete notify reason
draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info-01
Abstract
This document defines the DELETE_REASON Notify Message Status Type
Payload for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) to
support adding a reason for the deletion of the IKE or Child SA(s).
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 https://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 25 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Antony, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 support for specifying a Delete no October 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. DELETE_REASON Notify Status Message Payload . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Example Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Libreswan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The IKEv2 [RFC7296] protocol supports sending a Delete Notify
message, but this message cannot convey the reason why a particular
Child SA or IKE SA is being deleted. It can be useful to know why a
certain IPsec IKE SA or Child SA was deleted by the peer. Sometimes,
when the peer's operator notices a specific SA is down, they have no
idea whether this is permanent or temporary problem, and have no idea
how long an outage might last. The DELETE_REASON Notify message can
be added to any exchange that contains a Delete (42) payload
specifying an estimated duration and reason. Example reasons are
specified in Section 5.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Payload Format
All multi-octet fields representing integers are laid out in big
endian order (also known as "most significant byte first", or
"network byte order").
2. DELETE_REASON Notify Status Message Payload
Antony, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 support for specifying a Delete no October 2023
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 ! SPI Size ! Notify Message Type !
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
! Downtime ! !
+-------------------------------+ Reason Message ~
~ !
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
* Protocol ID (1 octet) - MUST be 0. MUST be ignored if not 0.
* SPI Size (1 octet) - MUST be 0. MUST be ignored if not 0.
* Notify Status Message Type (2 octets) - set to [TBD1]
* Downtime. A value in seconds for the expected downtime. 0 means
unspecified.
* Reason Message. May be empty. Otherwise a non-NULL terminated
UTF-8 or ASCII text.
3. Operational Considerations
A DELETE_REASON payload MUST be ignored if the exchange does not
contain a Delete payload. If multiple Delete payloads are present,
the DELETE_REASON message applies to all of these. If separate
different reasons should be conveyed for different Child SAs or IKE
SA, those Delete messages and their accompanied DELETE_REASON
messages should be sent in separate Informational Exchange messages.
4. Security Considerations
Any timing information and reason should be treated as an
informational "best effort" message from the peer's operator. A
DELETE_REASON message SHOULD NOT change the behaviour of the IKE
implementation other than logging the message or triggering an
informational or alert message.
Antony, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 support for specifying a Delete no October 2023
As with all received free-form text data, the receiver MUST treat the
DELETE_REASON notify data as untrusted. It SHOULD strip or replace
any characters not deemd regular text, for example the dollar sign
($), braces, backticks and backslashes. The Reason Message MUST NOT
be assumed to be safe to display. It MUST NOT be assumed to be NULL
terminated, which means common string operations such as strlen()
MUST NOT be used without precautions. After the data has been
processed and confirmed safe, it can be used for logging or as
messages in notification systems.
5. Example Messages
This section specifies short example messages that could be used to
convey common reasons that implementations might have for deleting
SAs.
Reason Message Meaning of the Reason Message
"SERVICE_SHUTDOWN" The IKE service is being shut down
"SERVICE_RESTART" The IKE service is being restarted
"HOST_SHUTDOWN" The host running the IKE service is being shut down
"HOST_RESTART" The host running the IKE service is being restarted
"CONFIGURATION_CHILD_REMOVED" The Child SA was removed from the
peer's configuration
"CONFIGURATION_IKE_REMOVED" The IKE SA was removed from the peer's
configuration
"ADMINISTRATIVELY_DOWN" The SA was brought down by the operator
"IDLE_TIMEOUT" The SA was inactive and brought down automatically by
the system
"INITIAL_CONTACT_REPLACED" A new IKE SA with this peer was
established that signaled INITIAL_CONTACT
"SIMULTANEOUS_REKEY" The peers ended up rekeying at once, and this
SA lost in favour of the other
"RE_AUTHENTICATED" A new IKE SA with this peer was established for
re-authentication purposes
"REDIRECTION_ACCEPTED" The redirection request was accepted and
established, obsoleting this old SA
Antony, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 support for specifying a Delete no October 2023
"LIFETIME_EXCEEDED" The SA reached its local lifetime counter (bytes
or seconds or packets) and was not rekeyed in time
6. Implementation Status
[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
[RFC6982] before publication.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of
this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before
publication, as well as the reference to [RFC7942].
6.1. Libreswan
Organization: The Libreswan Project
Name: https://libreswan.org/
Description: An initial IKE implementation using the Private Use
value 40960 for the Notify payload
Level of maturity: Beta
Coverage: Implements the draft's example reasons
Licensing: GPLv2
Implementation experience: TBD
Antony, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 support for specifying a Delete no October 2023
Contact: Libreswan Development: swan-dev@libreswan.org
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines one new IKEv2 Notify Message Type payload for
the IANA "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types" registry.
Value Notify Type Messages - Status Types Reference
----- ------------------------------ ---------------
[TBD1] DELETE_REASON [this document]
Figure 1
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Authors' Addresses
Antony Antony
secunet Security Networks AG
Email: antony.antony@secunet.com
Antony, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 support for specifying a Delete no October 2023
Patrick Kerpan
Cohesive Networks
Email: pjkerpan@cohesive.net
Paul Wouters
Aiven
Email: paul.wouters@aiven.io
Antony, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
