Network Working Group O. Gsenger Internet-Draft March 2007 Expires: September 2, 2007 secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) draft-gsenger-secure-anycast-tunneling-protocol-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 Abstract The secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) defines a protocol used for communication between any combination of unicast and anycast tunnel endpoints. It has less protocol overhead than IPSec in Tunnel mode and allows tunneling of every ETHER TYPE protocol (e.g. ethernet, ip, arp ...). satp directly includes cryptography and message authentication based on the methodes used by SRTP. It is intended to deliver a generic, scaleable, secure and reliability solution for tunneling and relaying of packets of any protocol. Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 1. Introduction anytun defines a Host Anycast Service as defined in rfc1546. It uses a peer-to-peer achitecture, with anycast servers and unicast clients. It can be used to build high scalable and redundant tunnel services. It also has a relay mode, that makes it possible, that only one of the connection endpoints has to use the anytun protocol. This can be used to make connections through Firewalls or behind a NAT Router RFC3068 [1] DTD. Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 2. Operation modes This section gives an overview of possible operation modes und usage scenarios. Please note, that the protocols used in the figures are only examples and that anytun itself does not care about either transport protocols or encapsulated protocols. Routing and network address translation is not done by anytun. Each implemetation MAY choose it's own way of doing this task (e.g. using functions provided by the operating system). Anytun is used to establish and controll tunnnels, to encapsulate and encrypt data. 2.1. Usage scenarions 2.1.1. tunneling from unicast client over anycast servers to unicast client An example of anytun used in tunnel mode ----------- ----------- | RTP | ---------- | RTP | ----------- -> |server 1| -> ----------- | UDP | ---------- | UDP | ----------- ----------- ----- | IPv6 | ---------- | IPv6 | ----- | | -> ----------- -> |server 2| -> ----------- -> | | ----- | anytun | ---------- | anytun | ----- ##### ----------- ----------- ##### | UDP | ---------- | UDP | client 1 ----------- -> |server 3| -> ----------- client 2 | IPv4 | ---------- | IPv4 | ----------- ----------- | ... | anycast | ... | Figure 1 In tunneling mode the payload of the anytun packet is transmitted from one unicast host to the anycast server. This server makes a routing descision based on the underlying protocol and transmits a new anytun package to one or more clients depending on the routing descition. The server MAY also route the packet to a directly connected network or a service running on the server, but please note, that this is only usefull for anycast host services like DNS and that the services HAVE TO be running on all servers in order to work. Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 2.1.2. tunneling from client to a server connected network An example of anytun used in open tunnel mode ----------- | RTP | ---------- ----------- -> |server 1| -> | UDP | ---------- ----------- ----------- | RTP | ----- | IPv6 | ---------- ----------- ----- | | -> ----------- -> |server 2| -> | UDP* | -> | | ----- | anytun | ---------- ----------- ----- ##### ----------- | IPv6* | ##### | UDP | ---------- ----------- client 1 ----------- -> |server 3| -> | ... | host | IPv4 | ---------- not using ----------- anytun | ... | anycast *changed source address or port Figure 2 In open tunnel mode only one of two clients talking to each other over the servers MUST use the anytun protocol. When a client using the anytun protocol wants to tunnel data, it is building a connection to the anycast servers using the anytun protocol. The anycast servers relay the encapsulated packages directly to the destination without using the anytun protocol. The source address of the datagramm HAS TO be changed to the anycast address of the server. The anytun servers act like a source NAT router, therefor for the destination it saems that it is talking to the client directly. 2.2. Transport modes Anytun does not define wich lower layer protocols HAVE TO be used, but it's most likely used on top of udp. This section should only discuss some issues on udp in combination with anycasting and tunnels. Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 2.2.1. Using UDP An example of anytun used with udp as transport ----------- ----------- | RTP | ---------- | RTP | ----------- -> |server 1| -> ----------- | UDP | ---------- | UDP | ----------- ----------- ----- | IPv6 | ---------- | IPv6 | ----- | | -> ----------- -> |server 2| -> ----------- -> | | ----- | anytun | ---------- | anytun | ----- ##### ----------- ----------- ##### | UDP | ---------- | UDP | client 1 ----------- -> |server 3| -> ----------- client 2 | IPv4 | ---------- | IPv4 | ----------- ----------- | ... | anycast | ... | Figure 3 When using UDP no flow controll or retransmission is done, neigther by UDP nor anytun. The encapsulated protocol HAS TO take care of this tasks if needed. UDP however has a checksum of the complete udp datagram, so a packet gets discarded if there is a biterror in the payload 2.2.2. Using lightUDP An example of anytun used with udp transport ----------- ----------- | RTP | ---------- | RTP | ----------- -> |server 1| -> ----------- | UDP | ---------- | UDP | ----------- ----------- ----- | IPv6 | ---------- | IPv6 | ----- | | -> ----------- -> |server 2| -> ----------- -> | | ----- | anytun | ---------- | anytun | ----- ##### ----------- ----------- ##### |lightUDP | ---------- |lightUDP | client 1 ----------- -> |server 3| -> ----------- client 2 | IPv4 | ---------- | IPv4 | ----------- ----------- | ... | anycast | ... | Figure 4 Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 The difference between normal UDP and lightUDP is, that the udp size is not set to the length of the full packet, but to the lenght of the data used for the checksum and therefor the checksum is only calculated for that part. When using lightUDP, the lenght HAS tO be set to the udp header length + the anytun header lenght. So there is no error correction or detection done on the payload. This can be usefull if realtime data is beeing transimittet or the tunneled protocol does error correction/detection by itself. 2.2.3. Fragmentation The only way of fully supporting fragmentation would be to syncronise fragments between all anycast servers. This is considered to be to much overhead, so there are two non perfect solutions for this problems. Either fragmentation HAS TO be disabled or if not all fragments arrive at the same server the ip datagramm HAS TO be discarded. As routing changes are not expected to occure very frequently, the encapsulated protocol can do a retransmission and all fragments will arrive at the new server. 2.3. Protocol specification 2.3.1. Header format Protocol 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 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | .... payload ... | | | |-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | | | padding (OPT) | pad count(OPT)| payload type | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ~ MKI (OPTIONAL) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | : authentication tag (RECOMMENDED) : | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | +- Encrypted Portion* Authenticated Portion ---+ Figure 5 Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 2.3.2. sequence number The sequenze number is a 32bit unsigned integer in network byte order. It starts with a random value and is increased by 1 for every sent packet. After the maximum value, it starts over from 0. This overrun causes the ROC to be increased. 2.3.3. payload A packet of the type payload type (e.g. an IP packet). 2.3.4. padding (OPTINAL) Padding of max 255 ocitets. None of the pre-defined encryption transforms uses any padding; for these, the plaintext and encrypted payload sizes match exactly. Transforms are based on transforms of the SRTP protocol and these transforms might use the RTP padding format, so a RTP like padding is supported. If padding field is present, than the padding count field MUST be set to the padding lenght. 2.3.5. padding count The number of octets of the padding field. This field is optional. It's presents is signaled by the key management and not by this protocol. If this field isn't present, the padding field MUST NOT be present as well. 2.3.6. payload type field The payload type field defines the payload protocol. ETHER TYPE protocol numerbers are used. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers . The values 0000- 05DC are reserverd and MUST NOT be used. Some examples for protocol types HEX 0000 Reserved .... Reserved 05DC Reserved 0800 Internet IP (IPv4) 6558 transparent ethernet bridging 86DD IPv6 Figure 6 Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 Appendix A. The appan Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 3. References [1] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", RFC 3068, June 2001. Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 Author's Address Othmar Gsenger Sporgasse 6 Graz 8010 AT Phone: Email: otti@wirdorange.org URI: http://anytun.org/ Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft secure anycast tunneling protocol (satp) March 2007 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Gsenger Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 12]