idnits 2.17.1 draft-droms-dhcp-relay-agent-ipsec-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 24, 2002) is 7853 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 120, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-dhc-auth-suboption-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2461 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 4861) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2401 (ref. '7') (Obsoleted by RFC 4301) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group R. Droms 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Expires: April 24, 2003 October 24, 2002 6 Use of IPsec for Securing DHCPv4 Messages Exchanged Between Relay 7 Agents and Servers 8 draft-droms-dhcp-relay-agent-ipsec-00.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2003. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option" (RFC 3046) assumes that DHCP 40 messages exchanged between relay agents and servers are not subject 41 to attack. This document describes how IPsec can be used to protect 42 messages exchanged between relay agents and servers. 44 1. Introduction 46 "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option" (RFC 3046 [1]) assumes that 47 DHCP [6] messages exchanged between relay agents and servers are not 48 subject to attack. IPsec [7] can be used by DHCP relay agents and 49 server to protect messages they exchange. 51 2. Terminology 53 This document uses the DHCP terminology from RFC 2131 and the relay 54 agent terminology from RFC 3046. 56 3. Requirements 58 The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, 59 SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this 60 document, are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4]. 62 4. Use of IPsec to secure DHCP messages 64 Relay agents and servers that exchange messages securely can use 65 IPsec mechanisms as described in this section. Relay agents and 66 servers MUST support manual configuration and installation of static 67 keys. If a client message is relayed through multiple relay agents, 68 each of the relay agents must have established independent, pairwise 69 trust relationships. That is, if messages from client C will be 70 relayed by relay agent A to relay agent B and then to the server, 71 relay agents A and B must be configured to use IPSec for the messages 72 they exchange, and relay agent B and the server must be configured to 73 use IPSec for the messages they exchange. 75 Relay agents and servers that support secure relay agent to server or 76 relay agent to relay agent communication, MUST include an IPsec 77 implementation with the following restrictions: 79 o The IPsec implementation MUST use ESP 81 o Packet authentication MUST be applied 83 o Encryption MAY be applied (i.e., NULL encryption can be used) 85 5. Security considerations 87 Relay agent options are used by DHCP relay agents to provide 88 additional information about DHCP clients to servers. An attacker 89 that can modify the contents of relay agent options may be able to 90 spoof the identity of a DHCP client or mount a denial of service 91 attack. 93 "Authentication for DHCP Messages" (RFC 3118 [3]) defines a mechanism 94 through which messages exchanged between DHCP clients and servers can 95 be secured. However, the mechanism in RFC 3118 does not provide any 96 protection for relay agent options. "The Authentication Suboption 97 for the DHCP Relay Agent Option" [2] defines an alternative to the 98 use of IPsec for securing relay agent options. 100 The use of IPsec for securing relay agent options in DHCP messages 101 requires the existence of an IPsec implementation available to the 102 relay agents and DHCP servers. It also requires manual configuration 103 of the participants, including manual distribution of keys. 105 References 107 [1] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", RFC 3046, 108 January 2001. 110 [2] Lemon, T. and M. Stapp, "The Authentication Suboption for the 111 DHCP Relay Agent Option", draft-ietf-dhc-auth-suboption-00 (work 112 in progress), June 2002. 114 [3] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages", 115 RFC 3118, June 2001. 117 [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 118 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 120 [5] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for 121 IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. 123 [6] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, 124 March 1997. 126 [7] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the 127 Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. 129 Author's Address 131 Ralph Droms 132 Cisco Systems 133 300 Apollo Drive 134 Chelmsford, MA 01824 135 USA 137 Phone: +1 978 497 4733 138 EMail: rdroms@cisco.com 140 Full Copyright Statement 142 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 144 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 145 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 146 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 147 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 148 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 149 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 150 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 151 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 152 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 153 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 154 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 155 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 156 English. 158 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 159 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 161 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 162 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 163 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 164 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 165 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 166 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 168 Acknowledgement 170 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 171 Internet Society.