Re: [dhcwg] seDHCPv6 update and next steps ...

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 13 July 2017 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840D5131755 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BHlW-HFOeT0J for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22f.google.com (mail-pf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E9931200FC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q85so20920946pfq.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xoL8pou2vXJPw+fLhpyDsdiHLkIqRptXn+z6IJmv/jM=; b=IV/UQqIHF3cn7OElqTc6wjz003gJ9SEk5/rNLmgHcdLbiCCoSXiwtqG2si9dpn+42R upm9fFbKUgkn0f5lHXC4o+c/0Eda6Vtip05L/3mEzhCCd3oSkUJlfXNg6wFhfQTO2ptT L/tv4SB1rkg6aNDXpiT0Lzkzdj++kjlYQ5/03ViMZOz5K2mpSIsyxBGA3zSkgD6P7ES5 51VFw4uaE+KUSTsmr9MPWeCy9+f1H2xePhXfcqCYXSuHo3TY0xXNq+v+Gr5isjOP5Fkm GV42Zo2FyrXDQbHHry2IGcxA9eq90f68HzgLyf0hTkF6w4XDmMZKIsqVKiX5qCQhZBvR U6wg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xoL8pou2vXJPw+fLhpyDsdiHLkIqRptXn+z6IJmv/jM=; b=USbmiJo4xJCPRmGgsYK5rffommxZTev3XcJNYLhVPR9MFRfPmjDm/ZBy7ItdJBg+04 JGxotfxmK8z5/6ump84oltc+qlyZo0wTvJ1LX5X4mY9tehRSRP1SL7jmQswc2YYxgTbG 5MnPYxpYUSa9llN84JCoO9Q0NHI0nWMcOfE90Ib+m3lNLqNp8BTaiQGfuSgpV3akLzUM 0jSR206x5Gc0IK8Jbce/MfwHqWFpcnaQ9Ys64z2AJo+Zi6Q5SvyyAbopPL9Ko15Z++rc zk5HkpgYH/4InBZIqIN+vTje5s+nIcStoXyHW1X8+GwoNqBy4YUlieDeAvgmmACh8W9s vyqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113FlkuZ739uApydas1VcZjT12OspaGEZo09ug143XW4LgX2dJ6U cMz85jSxIxxxgomb/8Fs6jw7XsNgWIh8
X-Received: by 10.99.167.79 with SMTP id w15mr6534290pgo.22.1499907629074; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.170.2 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <88de415b32e4483bb73bf5d148956ef6@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
References: <4775705423554cc39360724881251abe@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <a3d7522c763947a2916edfc461bf92af@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <e9cbb73ac7164448aa215c5ab3081e18@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <cb431acefa5149a4a024538352e02357@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <0A6AD09C-F75A-4A64-8ECB-A6A81C1201D6@cisco.com> <CAPt1N1mSxTdtpqcVQRnHnYLH=8iu00+rs0FjrLYc-xyQLqn3Lw@mail.gmail.com> <88de415b32e4483bb73bf5d148956ef6@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:59:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kwStobxvtZCzBD6r2crbcUVNg5+cmo-BS5SHFw=Mko4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1bdaa46d5bd60554287597"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/tMHFoco3RoSdOQCSy95wgD2X7zQ>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] seDHCPv6 update and next steps ...
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:00:32 -0000

The relay-reply should contain the client link-layer address.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>; wrote:

> I mean for something to identify who made the request for the address or
> delegated prefix. Otherwise, the relay may not have much other than the
> link layer address (if it extracts it from the original client message,
> which would kind of nasty since it requires matching up the reply with the
> request). It could always encode something in the interface-identifier or
> some other option.
>
>
>
> And, yes, so it might be able to match up information obtained from other
> sources, such as Leasequery.
>
>
>
> -          Bernie
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 12, 2017 8:25 PM
> *To:* Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>;
> *Cc:* Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>;; dhcwg@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6@tools.ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dhcwg] seDHCPv6 update and next steps ...
>
>
>
> You mean for leasequery?   We should probably scope that out.   It's not
> clear to me that there's an overlap in the use cases, though.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks for your use case. We'll hopefully get more.
>
>
>
> And,
>
> since there may be a LDRA, the DHCPv6 parameters must be available
>
> in-the-clear so that the LDRA can snoop any IA_NA/IA_PD assignments.
>
>
>
> I think this can be solved in other ways, such as via the RAAN work.
> Though one issue with that is we need to figure out how to provide client
> details (i.e., client-id) that might be needed by relays.
>
>
> - Bernie (from iPad)
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2017, at 5:36 PM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
>
>
> My scenario is very simple. The client and server are connected to the same
>
> link, and the link already supports link-layer security (e.g., IEEE
> 802.1X).
>
>
>
> The client knows that it can trust the server because the server’s address
>
> is in a list of known server addresses for the link that cannot be
> subverted
>
> by an adversary and there is no opportunity for source address spoofing.
>
>
>
> The server knows that the client is authorized to connect to the link
>
> (e.g., due to 802.1X) but the server does not know whether the client
>
> is authorized to use the DUID it is claiming in its DHCPv6 messages.
>
> For example, trusted client ‘A’ could use trusted client ‘B’s DUID to
>
> steal client ‘B’s service – an “insider attack”.
>
>
>
> So, what is needed from seDHCPv6 is for the client to authenticate itself
>
> to the server so that it cannot steal the services of another client. And,
>
> since there may be a LDRA, the DHCPv6 parameters must be available
>
> in-the-clear so that the LDRA can snoop any IA_NA/IA_PD assignments.
>
>
>
> Thanks - Fred
>
>
>
> *From:* Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com <volz@cisco.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 12, 2017 2:06 PM
> *To:* Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>;;
> draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6@tools.ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: seDHCPv6 update and next steps ...
>
>
>
> Hi Fred:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your interest.
>
>
>
> Could you clarify what you mean by authentication-only? As I see if in
> terms of authentication there is:
>
> 1.       Authenticate the server to the client
>
> 2.       Authenticate the client to the server
>
> 3.       Or both
>
>
>
> There are also various degrees of authentication – for example, TOFU
> (Trust on First Use) to trusted third party (and what that might impose on
> certificate distribution / validation).
>
>
>
> And, if you have a specific use model in mind (for example, if this is for
> AERO), having a brief summary of this and the authentication requirements
> would be useful.
>
>
>
> I’d also suggest that understanding why other techniques, such as 802.1X,
> would not be appropriate could provide added value in understanding the
> requirements.
>
>
>
> -          Bernie
>
>
>
> *From:* Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com
> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:49 PM
> *To:* Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>;; draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6@tools.
> ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: seDHCPv6 update and next steps ...
>
>
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, my plane does not arrive until ~16:00 CEST on Sunday. But,
> if
>
> this work is going back to first principles I would like to express an
> interest in
>
> an authentication-only mode of operation (i.e., no encryption). It would
>
> avoid a “double-encryption” when encryption is already provided by the
>
> link layer between the client and server (or first-hop relay) and there are
>
> already other securing mechanisms in place between relays and servers.
>
>
>
> Thanks - Fred
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Bernie Volz (volz)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:30 PM
> *To:* draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6@tools.ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [dhcwg] seDHCPv6 update and next steps ...
>
>
>
> Hi:
>
>
>
> There has been some discussion (most recently off the dhcwg mailing list)
> about the sedhcpv6 draft.
>
>
>
> Previously, as discussed on the dhcwg mailing list a while back, there are
> some issues with the current draft (including the encryption issue; the key
> can’t be used to encrypt more data than the size of the key). And, while
> some of the co-authors have communicated recently, others have been quiet
> and it is not clear what the level of interest for each is in continuing.
> This work has sadly had a long road with several turns already.
>
>
>
> The discussion raised the question as to what the goals of this work
> should be. Some feel that we need to step back and first develop a
> “requirements document” to clearly detail what the goals of a securing
> DHCPv6 should be (for example, was the fairly recent push to add encryption
> appropriate?).
>
>
>
> Thus, Tomek and I feel that it would be worth having an interested group
> meet before the IETF-99 DHC WG session (which is on Wednesday, 7/19
> afternoon) to discuss this so that we could formulate a strategy. If you
> have interest, let us know. We propose to meet on Sunday at 14:00 (CEST) in
> Chez Louis (Hackathon) room – we can find a table there, or look for
> another place. (If there is remote participation interest, let us know and
> we’ll see what we might be able to accommodate.)
>
>
>
> We may also have extra time in the DHC WG session to discuss in detail
> there, but it could be helpful to have one or more proposals and, if we get
> the slides out quickly, give people some time to think about it before the
> WG session.
>
>
>
> -          Bernie and Tomek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>