path: root/internet-draft-satp.txt

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]