RFC3104: RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec

Download in PDF format Download in text format

Network Working Group                                      G. Montenegro
Request for Comments: 3104                        Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Category: Experimental                                        M. Borella
                                                            October 2001

                   RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec

Status of this Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.


   The IESG notes that the set of documents describing the RSIP
   technology imply significant host and gateway changes for a complete
   implementation.  In addition, the floating of port numbers can cause
   problems for some applications, preventing an RSIP-enabled host from
   interoperating transparently with existing applications in some cases
   (e.g., IPsec).  Finally, there may be significant operational
   complexities associated with using RSIP.  Some of these and other
   complications are outlined in section 6 of the RFC 3102, as well as
   in the Appendices of RFC 3104.  Accordingly, the costs and benefits
   of using RSIP should be carefully weighed against other means of
   relieving address shortage.


   This document proposes mechanisms that enable Realm Specific IP
   (RSIP) to handle end-to-end IPsec (IP Security).

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 1]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ..................................................  2
   2. Model .........................................................  2
   3. Implementation Notes ..........................................  3
   4. IKE Handling and Demultiplexing ...............................  4
   5. IPsec Handling and Demultiplexing .............................  5
   6. RSIP Protocol Extensions ......................................  6
      6.1 IKE Support in RSIP .......................................  6
      6.2 IPsec Support in RSIP .....................................  7
   7. IANA Considerations ........................................... 10
   8. Security Considerations ....................................... 10
   9. Acknowledgements .............................................. 10
   References ....................................................... 11
   Authors' Addresses ............................................... 12
   Appendix A: On Optional Port Allocation to RSIP Clients .......... 13
   Appendix B: RSIP Error Numbers for IKE and IPsec Support ......... 14
   Appendix C: Message Type Values for IPsec Support ................ 14
   Appendix D: A Note on Flow Policy Enforcement .................... 14
   Appendix E: Remote Host Rekeying ................................. 14
   Appendix F: Example Application Scenarios ........................ 15
   Appendix G: Thoughts on Supporting Incoming Connections .......... 17
   Full Copyright Statement ......................................... 19

1. Introduction

   This document specifies RSIP extensions to enable end-to-end IPsec.
   It assumes the RSIP framework as presented in [RSIP-FW], and
   specifies extensions to the RSIP protocol defined in [RSIP-P].  Other
   terminology follows [NAT-TERMS].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

2. Model

   For clarity, the discussion below assumes this model:

   RSIP client              RSIP server                   Host

      Xa                    Na   Nb                       Yb
            +------------+       Nb1  +------------+
   [X]------| Addr space |----[N]-----| Addr space |-------[Y]
            |  A         |       Nb2  |  B         |
            +------------+       ...  +------------+

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 2]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

   Hosts X and Y belong to different address spaces A and B,
   respectively, and N is an RSIP server.  N has two addresses:  Na on
   address space A, and Nb on address space B.  For example, A could be
   a private address space, and B the public address space of the
   general Internet.  Additionally, N may have a pool of addresses in
   address space B which it can assign to or lend to X.

   This document proposes RSIP extensions and mechanisms to enable an
   RSIP client X to initiate IKE and IPsec sessions to a legacy IKE and
   IPsec node Y.  In order to do so, X exchanges RSIP protocol messages
   with the RSIP server N.  This document does not yet address IKE/IPsec
   session initiation from Y to an RSIP client X.  For some thoughts on
   this matter see Appendix G.

   The discussion below assumes that the RSIP server N is examining a
   packet sent by Y, destined for X.  This implies that "source" refers
   to Y and "destination" refers to Y's peer, namely, X's presence at N.

   This document assumes the use of the RSAP-IP flavor of RSIP (except
   that port number assignments are optional), on top of which SPI
   values are used for demultiplexing.  Because of this, more than one
   RSIP client may share the same global IP address.

3. Implementation Notes

   The RSIP server N is not required to have more than one address on
   address space B.  RSIP allows X (and any other hosts on address space
   A) to reuse Nb.  Because of this, Y's SPD SHOULD NOT be configured to
   support address-based keying.  Address-based keying implies that only
   one RSIP client may, at any given point in time, use address Nb when
   exchanging IPsec packets with Y.  Instead, Y's SPD SHOULD be
   configured to support session-oriented keying, or user-oriented
   keying [Kent98c].  In addition to user-oriented keying, other types
   of identifications within the IKE Identification Payload are equally
   effective at disambiguating who is the real client behind the single
   address Nb [Piper98].

   Because it cannot rely on address-based keying, RSIP support for
   IPsec is similar to the application of IPsec for remote access using
   dynamically assigned addresses.  Both cases impose additional
   requirements which are not met by minimally compliant IPsec
   implementations [Gupta]:

      Note that a minimally-compliant IKE implementation (which only
      implements Main mode with Pre-shared keys for Phase I
      authentication) cannot be used on a remote host with a dynamically
      assigned address.  The IKE responder (gateway) needs to look up
      the initiator's (mobile node's) pre-shared key before it can

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 3]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

      decrypt the latter's third main mode message (fifth overall in
      Phase I).  Since the initiator's identity is contained in the
      encrypted message, only its IP address is available for lookup and
      must be predictable.  Other options, such as Main mode with
      digital signatures/RSA encryption and Aggressive mode, can
      accommodate IKE peers with dynamically assigned addresses.

   IKE packets are typically carried on UDP port 500 for both source and
   destination, although the use of ephemeral source ports is not
   precluded [ISAKMP].  IKE implementations for use with RSIP SHOULD
   employ ephemeral ports, and should handle them as follows [IPSEC-

      IKE implementations MUST support UDP port 500 for both source and
      destination, but other port numbers are also allowed.  If an
      implementation allows other-than-port-500 for IKE, it sets the
      value of the port numbers as reported in the ID payload to 0
      (meaning "any port"), instead of 500.  UDP port numbers (500 or
      not) are handled by the common "swap src/dst port and reply"

   It is important to note that IPsec implementations MUST be aware of
   RSIP, at least in some peripheral sense, in order to receive assigned
   SPIs and perhaps other parameters from an RSIP client.  Therefore,
   bump-in-the-stack (BITS) implementations of IPsec are not expected to
   work "out of the box" with RSIP.

4. IKE Handling and Demultiplexing

   If an RSIP client requires the use of port 500 as its IKE source,
   this prevents that field being used for demultiplexing.  Instead, the
   "Initiator Cookie" field in the IKE header fields must be used for
   this purpose.  This field is appropriate as it is guaranteed to be
   present in every IKE exchange (Phase 1 and Phase 2), and is
   guaranteed to be in the clear (even if subsequent IKE payloads are
   encrypted).  However, it is protected by the Hash payload in IKE
   [IKE].  Because of this, an RSIP client and server must agree upon a
   valid value for the Initiator Cookie.

   Once X and N arrive at a mutually agreeable value for the Initiator
   Cookie, X uses it to create an IKE packet and tunnels it the RSIP
   server N.  N decapsulates the IKE packet and sends it on address
   space B.

   The minimum tuple negotiated via RSIP, and used for demultiplexing
   incoming IKE responses from Y at the RSIP server N, is:

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 4]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

      -  IKE destination port number

      -  Initiator Cookie

      -  Destination IP address

   One problem still remains: how does Y know that it is supposed to
   send packets to X via Nb? Y is not RSIP-aware, but it is definitely
   IKE-aware.  Y sees IKE packets coming from address Nb.  To prevent Y
   from mistakenly deriving the identity of its IKE peer based on the
   source address of the packets (Nb), X MUST exchange client
   identifiers with Y:

      -  IDii, IDir if in Phase 1, and

      -  IDci, IDcr if in Phase 2.

   The proper use of identifiers allows the clear separation between
   those identities and the source IP address of the packets.

5. IPsec Handling and Demultiplexing

   The RSIP client X and server N must arrive at an SPI value to denote
   the incoming IPsec security association from Y to X.  Once N and X
   make sure that the SPI is unique within both of their SPI spaces, X
   communicates its value to Y as part of the IPsec security association
   establishment process, namely, Quick Mode in IKE [IKE] or manual

   This ensures that Y sends IPsec packets (protocols 51 and 50 for AH
   and ESP, respectively) [Kent98a,Kent98b] to X via address Nb using
   the negotiated SPI.

   IPsec packets from Y destined for X arrive at RSIP server N.  They
   are demultiplexed based on the following minimum tuple of
   demultiplexing fields:

      -  protocol (50 or 51)

      -  SPI

      -  destination IP address

   If N is able to find a matching mapping, it tunnels the packet to X
   according to the tunneling mode in effect.  If N cannot find an
   appropriate mapping, it MUST discard the packet.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 5]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

6. RSIP Protocol Extensions

   The next two sections specify how the RSIP protocol [RSIP-P] is
   extended to support both IKE (a UDP application) and the IPsec-
   defined AH and ESP headers (layered directly over IP with their own
   protocol numbers).

   If a server implements RSIP support for IKE and IPsec as defined in
   this document, it MAY include the RSIP Method parameter for RSIP with
   IPsec in the REGISTER_RESPONSE method sent to the client.  This
   method is assigned a value of 3:

      3   RSIP with IPsec (RSIPSEC)

   Unless otherwise specified, requirements of micro and macro flow-
   based policy are handled according to [RSIP-P].

6.1 IKE Support in RSIP

   As discussed above, if X's IPsec implementation allows use of an
   ephemeral source port for IKE, then incoming IKE traffic can be
   demultiplexed by N based on the destination address and port tuple.
   This is the simplest and most desirable way of supporting IKE, and
   IPsec implementations that interact with RSIP SHOULD allow it.

   However, if X must use source port 500 for IKE, there are two
   techniques with which X and N can arrive at a mutually unique
   Initiator Cookie.

      -  Trial and error.

      -  Negotiation via an extension of the RSIP protocol.

   The trial and error technique consists of X first obtaining resources
   with which to use IPsec (via ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIPSEC, defined below),
   and then randomly choosing an Initiator Cookie and transmitting the
   first packet to Y.  Upon arrival at N, the RSIP server examines the
   Initiator Cookie for uniqueness per X's assigned address (Nb).  If
   the cookie is unique, N allows the use of this cookie for this an all
   subsequent packets between X and Y on this RSIP binding.  If the
   cookie is not unique, N drops the packet.

   When an IKE packet is determined to be lost, the IKE client will
   attempt to retransmit at least three times [IKE].  An RSIP-aware IKE
   client SHOULD use different Initiator Cookies for each of these

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 6]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

   The probability of an Initiator Cookie collision at N and subsequent
   retransmissions by X, is infinitesimal given the 64-bit cookie space.
   According to the birthday paradox, in a population of 640 million
   RSIP clients going through the same RSIP server, the chances of a
   first collision is just 1%.  Thus, it is desirable to use the trial
   and error method over negotiation, for these reasons:

      -  Simpler implementation requirements

      -  It is highly unlikely that more than one round trip between X
         and N will be necessary.

6.2 IPsec Support in RSIP

   This section defines the protocol extensions required for RSIP to
   support AH and ESP.  The required message types are


      The ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIPSEC message is used by an RSIP client to
      request IPsec parameter assignments.  An RSIP client MUST request
      an IP address and SPIs in one message.

      If the RSIP client wishes to use IPsec to protect a TCP or UDP
      application, it MUST use the port range parameter (see Appendix
      A).  Otherwise, it MUST set the port parameters to the "don't
      need" value.  This is accomplished by setting the length field to
      0, and by omitting both the number field and the port field.  This
      informs the server that the client does not actually need any port

      The client may initialize the SPI parameter to the "don't care"
      value (see below).  In this case, it is requesting the server to
      assign it a valid SPI value to use.

      Alternatively, the client may initialize the SPI parameter to a
      value it considers valid.  In this case, it is suggesting that
      value to the server.  Of course, the server may choose to reject
      that suggestion and return an appropriate error message.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 7]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

      The format of this message is:

      <ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIPSEC> ::= <Version>
                                   <Message Type>
                                   <Overall Length>
                                   <Client ID>
                                   <Address (local)>
                                   <Ports (local)>
                                   <Address (remote)>
                                   <Ports (remote)>
                                   [Message Counter]
                                   [Lease Time]
                                   [Tunnel Type]

      The following message-specific error conditions exist.  The error
      behavior of ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIP_IPSEC follows that of
      ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSAP-IP for all non-IPsec errors.

      -  If the client is not allowed to use IPsec through the server,
         the server MUST respond with an ERROR_RESPONSE containing the
         IPSEC_UNALLOWED parameter.

      -  If the SPI parameter is a "don't care" value and the RSIP
         server cannot allocate ANY SPIs, the RSIP server MUST respond
         with an ERROR_RESPONSE containing the IPSEC_SPI_UNAVAILABLE

      -  If an SPI parameter is not a "don't care" value and the RSIP
         server cannot allocate it because the requested address and SPI
         tuple is in use, the RSIP server MUST respond with an
         ERROR_RESPONSE containing the IPSEC_SPI_INUSE error.


      The ASSIGN_RESPONSE_RSIPSEC message is used by an RSIP server to
      assign parameters to an IPsec-enabled RSIP client.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 8]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

      The format of this message is:

      <ASSIGN_RESPONSE_RSIPSEC> ::= <Version>
                                    <Message Type>
                                    <Overall Length>
                                    <Client ID>
                                    <Bind ID>
                                    <Address (local)>
                                    <Ports (local)>
                                    <Address (remote)>
                                    <Ports (remote)>
                                    <Lease Time>
                                    <Tunnel Type>
                                    [Address (tunnel endpoint)]
                                    [Message Counter]

      If the port parameters were set to the "don't need" value in the
      request (see above), the RSIP server must do the same in the

   Additionally, RSIP support for IPsec requires the following new

        Code   Length    Number    SPI             SPI
      +------+--------+---------+---------+     +---------+
      |  22  |    2   | 2 bytes | 4 bytes | ... | 4 bytes |
      +------+--------+---------+---------+     +---------+

   Sent by the RSIP client in ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIPSEC messages to ask for
   a particular number of SPIs to be assigned.  Also sent by the RSIP
   server to the client in ASSIGN_RESPONSE_RSIPSEC messages.

   The "SPI" fields encode one or more SPIs.  When a single SPI is
   specified, the value of the number field is 1 and there is one SPI
   field following the number field.  When more than one SPI is
   specified, the value of the number field will indicate the total
   number of SPIs contained, and the parameter may take one of two
   forms.  If there is one SPI field, the SPIs specified are considered
   to be contiguous starting at the SPI number specified in the SPI
   field.  Alternatively, there may be a number of SPI fields equal to
   the value of the number field.  The number of SPI fields can be
   extrapolated from the value of the length field.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                      [Page 9]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

   In some cases, it is necessary to specify a "don't care" value for
   one or more SPIs.  This is accomplished by setting the length field
   to 2 (to account for the 2 bytes in the Number field), setting the
   number field to the number of SPIs necessary, and omitting all SPI
   fields.  The value of the number field MUST be greater than or equal
   to one.

7. IANA Considerations

   All of the designations below are tentative.

      -  RSIP IPsec error codes (see below).

      -  ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIP_IPSEC message type code.

      -  SPI parameter code.

8. Security Considerations

   This document does not add any security issues to those already posed
   by NAT, or normal routing operations.  Current routing decisions
   typically are based on a tuple with only one element:  destination IP
   address.  This document just adds more elements to the tuple.

   Furthermore, by allowing an end-to-end mode of operation and by
   introducing a negotiation phase to address reuse, the mechanisms
   described here are more secure and less arbitrary than NAT.

   A word of caution is in order: SPI values are meant to be semi-
   random, and, thus serve also as anti-clogging tokens to reduce off-
   the-path denial-of-service attacks.  However, RSIP support for IPsec,
   renders SPI's a negotiated item: in addition to being unique values
   at the receiver X, they must also be unique at the RSIP server, N.
   Limiting the range of the SPI values available to the RSIP clients
   reduces their entropy slightly.

9. Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Bernard Aboba, Vipul Gupta, Jeffrey Lo, Dan Nessett,
   Gary Jaszewski and Prakash Iyer for helpful discussions.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 10]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001


   [Gupta]     Gupta, V., "Secure Remote Access over the Internet using
               IPSec", Work in Progress.

   [IKE]       Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
               (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.

   [ISAKMP]    Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M. and J. Turner,
               "Internet Security Association and Key Management
               Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.

   [IPSEC-MSG] Ted Ts'o, message to the IETF's IPsec mailing list,
               November 23, 1999.

   [Jenkins]   Jenkins, T., "IPsec Rekeying Issues", Work in Progress.

   [Kent98a]   Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Payload", RFC
               2406, November 1998.

   [Kent98b]   Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC
               2402, November 1998.

   [Kent98c]   Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
               Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

   [Piper98]   Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
               Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.

   [NAPT]      Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
               Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January

   [NAT-TERMS] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdredge, "IP Network Address
               Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC
               2663, August 1999.

   [RSIP-FW]   Borella, M., Lo, J., Grabelsky, D. and G. Montenegro,
               "Realm Specific IP: A Framework", RFC 3102, October 2001.

   [RSIP-P]    Borella, M., Grabelsky, D., Lo, J. and K. Taniguchi,
               "Realm Specific IP: Protocol Specification", RFC 3103,
               October 2001.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 11]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

Authors' Addresses

   Gabriel E. Montenegro
   Sun Microsystems
   Laboratories, Europe
   29, chemin du Vieux Chene
   38240 Meylan

   Phone: +33 476 18 80 45
   EMail: gab@sun.com

   Michael Borella
   3800 Golf Rd.
   Rolling Meadows IL 60008

   Phone: (847) 262-3083
   EMail: mike_borella@commworks.com

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 12]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

Appendix A: On Optional Port Allocation to RSIP Clients

   Despite the fact that SPIs rather than ports are used to
   demultiplex packets at the RSIP server, the RSIP server may
   still allocate mutually exclusive port numbers to the RSIP
   clients.  If this does not happen, there is the possibility that
   two RSIP clients using the same IP address attempt an IPsec
   session with the same server using the same source port

   | RSIP client |
   |      X1     +--+
   |             |  |         +-------------+
   +-------------+  |         |             |Nb
                    +---------+ RSIP server +----------------
   +-------------+  |         |      N      |
   | RSIP client |  |         +-------------+
   |      X2     +--+ private                     public
   |             |  | network                     network
   +-------------+  |

   For example, consider hosts X1 and X2 depicted above.  Assume that
   they both are using public address Nb, and both are contacting an
   external server Y at port 80.  If they are using IPsec but are not
   allocated mutually exclusive port numbers, they may both choose the
   same ephemeral port number to use when contacting Y at port 80.
   Assume client X1 does so first, and after engaging in an IKE
   negotiation begins communicating with the public server using IPsec.

   When Client X2 starts its IKE session, it sends its identification to
   the public server.  The latter's SPD requires that different
   identities use different flows (port numbers).  Because of this, the
   IKE negotiation will fail.  Client X2 will be forced to try another
   ephemeral port until it succeeds in obtaining one which is currently
   not in use by any other security association between the public
   server and any of the RSIP clients in the private network.

   Each such iteration is costly in terms of round-trip times and CPU
   usage.  Hence --and as a convenience to its RSIP clients--, an RSIP
   server may also assign mutually exclusive port numbers to its IPsec
   RSIP clients.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 13]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

   Despite proper allocation of port numbers, an RSIP server cannot
   prevent their misuse because it cannot examine the port fields in
   packets that have been encrypted by the RSIP clients.  Presumably, if
   the RSIP clients have gone through the trouble of negotiating ports
   numbers, it is in their best interest to adhere to these assignments.

Appendix B: RSIP Error Numbers for IKE and IPsec Support

   This section provides descriptions for the error values in the RSIP
   error parameter beyond those defined in [RSIP-P].

   401: IPSEC_UNALLOWED.  The server will not allow the client
        to use end-to-end IPsec.

   402: IPSEC_SPI_UNAVAILABLE.  The server does not have an SPI
        available for client use.

   403: IPSEC_SPI_INUSE.  The client has requested an SPI that
        another client is currently using.

Appendix C: Message Type Values for IPsec Support

   This section defines the values assigned to RSIP message types beyond
   those defined in [RSIP-P].



Appendix D: A Note on Flow Policy Enforcement

   An RSIP server may not be able to enforce local or remote micro-flow
   policy when a client uses ESP for end-to-end encryption, since all
   TCP/UDP port numbers will be encrypted.  However, if AH without ESP
   is used, micro-flow policy is enforceable.  Macro-flow policy will
   always be enforceable.

Appendix E: Remote Host Rekeying

   Occasionally, a remote host with which an RSIP client has established
   an IPsec security association (SA) will rekey [Jenkins].  SA rekeying
   is only an issue for RSIP when IKE port 500 is used by the client and
   the rekey is of ISAKMP phase 1 (the ISAKMP SA).  The problem is that
   the remote host will transmit IKE packets to port 500 with a new
   initiator cookie.  The RSIP server will not have a mapping for the
   cookie, and SHOULD drop the the packets.  This will cause the ISAKMP

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 14]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

   SA between the RSIP client and remote host to be deleted, and may
   lead to undefined behavior given that current implementations handle
   rekeying in a number of different ways.

   If the RSIP client uses an ephemeral source port, rekeying will not
   be an issue for RSIP.  If this cannot be done, there are a number of
   RSIP client behaviors that may reduce the number of occurrences of
   this problem, but are not guaranteed to eliminate it.

      -  The RSIP client's IKE implementation is given a smaller ISAKMP
         SA lifetime than is typically implemented.  This would likely
         cause the RSIP client to rekey the ISAKMP SA before the remote
         host.  Since the RSIP client chooses the Initiator Cookie,
         there will be no problem routing incoming traffic at the RSIP

      -  The RSIP client terminates the ISAKMP SA as soon as the first
         IPsec SA is established.  This may alleviate the situation to
         some degree if the SA is coarse-grained.  On the other hand,
         this exacerbates the problem if the SA is fine-grained (such
         that it cannot be reused by other application-level
         connections), and the remote host needs to initialize sockets
         back to the RSIP client.

   Note that the unreliability of UDP essentially makes the ephemeral
   source approach the only robust solution.

Appendix F: Example Application Scenarios

   This section briefly describes some examples of how RSIP may be used
   to enable applications of IPsec that are otherwise not possible.

   The SOHO (small office, home office) scenario

   |RSIP      |
   |client X1 +--+
   |          |  |  +-------------+            +-------+
   +----------+  |  |NAPT gateway |            |public |
                 +--+ and         +--.......---+IPsec  |
   +----------+  |  |RSIP server  |            |peer Y |
   |RSIP      |  |  +-------------+            +-------+
   |client X2 +--+ private             public
   |          |  | "home"             Internet
   +----------+  | network

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 15]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

   Suppose the private "home" network is a small installation in
   somebody's home, and that the RSIP clients X1 and X2 must use the
   RSIP server N as a gateway to the outside world.  N is connected via
   an ISP and obtains a single address which must be shared by its
   clients.  Because of this, N has NAPT, functionality.  Now, X1 wishes
   to establish an IPsec SA with peer Y.  This is possible because N is
   also an RSIP server augmented with the IPsec support defined in this
   document.  Y is IPsec-capable, but is not RSIP aware.  This is
   perhaps the most typical application scenario.

   The above is equally applicable in the ROBO (remote office, branch
   office) scenario.

   The Roadwarrior scenario

   +---------+              +------------+   +----------+
   |RSIP     |              |Corporate   |   | IPsec    |
   |client X +--..........--+Firewall    +---+ peer Y   |
   |         |    public    | and        |   | (user's  |
   +---------+   Internet   |RSIP server |   | desktop) |
                            | N          |   |          |
                            +------------+   +----------+
                                  private corporate

   In this example, a remote user with a laptop gains access to the
   Internet, perhaps by using PPP or DHCP.  The user wants to access its
   corporation private network.  Using mechanisms not specified in this
   document, the RSIP client in the laptop engages in an RSIP
   authentication and authorization phase with the RSIP server at the
   firewall.  After that phase is completed, the IPsec extensions to
   RSIP defined here are used to establish an IPsec session with a peer,
   Y, that resides within the corporation's network.  Y could be, for
   example, the remote user's usual desktop when at the office.  The
   corporate firewall complex would use RSIP to selectively enable IPsec
   traffic between internal and external systems.

   Note that this scenario could also be reversed in order to allow an
   internal system (Y) to initiate and establish an IPsec session with
   an external IPsec peer (X).

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 16]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

Appendix G: Thoughts on Supporting Incoming Connections

   Incoming IKE connections are much easier to support if the peer Y can
   initiate IKE exchanges to a port other than 500.  In this case, the
   RSIP client would allocate that port at the RSIP server via
   ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSAP-IP.  Alternatively, if the RSIP client is able to
   allocate an IP address at the RSIP server via ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSA-IP,
   Y could simply initiate the IKE exchange to port 500 at that address.

   If there is only one address Nb that must be shared by the RSIP
   server and all its clients, and if Y can only send to port 500, the
   problem is much more difficult.  At any given time, the combination
   of address Nb and UDP port 500 may be registered and used by only one
   RSIP system (including clients and server).

   Solving this issue would require demultiplexing the incoming IKE
   connection request based on something other than the port and address
   combination.  It may be possible to do so by first registering an
   identity with a new RSIP command of LISTEN_RSIP_IKE.  Note that the
   identity could not be that of the IKE responder (the RSIP client),
   but that of the initiator (Y).  The reason is that IKE Phase 1 only
   allows the sender to include its own identity, not that of the
   intended recipient (both, by the way, are allowed in Phase 2).
   Furthermore, the identity must be in the clear in the first incoming
   packet for the RSIP server to be able to use it as a demultiplexor.
   This rules out all variants of Main Mode and Aggressive Mode with
   Public Key Encryption (and Revised Mode of Public Key Encryption),
   since these encrypt the ID payload.

   The only Phase 1 variants which enable incoming IKE sessions are
   Aggressive Mode with signatures or with pre-shared keys.  Because
   this scheme involves the RSIP server demultiplexing based on the
   identity of the IKE initiator, it is conceivable that only one RSIP
   client at a time may register interest in fielding requests from any
   given peer Y.  Furthermore, this precludes more than one RSIP client'
   s being available to any unspecified peer Y.

   Once the IKE session is in place, IPsec is set up as discussed in
   this document, namely, by the RSIP client and the RSIP server
   agreeing on an incoming SPI value, which is then communicated to the
   peer Y as part of Quick Mode.

   The alternate address and port combination must be discovered by the
   remote peer using methods such as manual configuration, or the use of
   KX (RFC2230) or SRV (RFC2052) records.  It may even be possible for
   the DNS query to trigger the above mechanisms to prepare for the
   incoming and impending IKE session initiation.  Such a mechanism
   would allow more than one RSIP client to be available at any given

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 17]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

   time, and would also enable each of them to respond to IKE
   initiations from unspecified peers.  Such a DNS query, however, is
   not guaranteed to occur.  For example, the result of the query could
   be cached and reused after the RSIP server is no longer listening for
   a given IKE peer's identity.

   Because of the limitations implied by having to rely on the identity
   of the IKE initiator, the only practical way of supporting incoming
   connections is for the peer Y to initiate the IKE session at a port
   other than 500.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 18]
RFC 3104           RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec        October 2001

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Montenegro & Borella          Experimental                     [Page 19]