Re: [IPsec] NUDGE: Starting discussion of failure detection proposals

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi everyone,

we intend to have a thorough discussion of failure detection in 
Maastricht. Please make sure to read the two drafts in advance of the WG 
meeting (which is Monday morning!) so we can get this thing going at last.

Email comments *before* the meeting would be very useful, of course.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 07/07/2010 08:02 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> [[ This topic generated a fair amount of discussion in the past; are folks still interested? ]]
>
> Greetings again. The WG has one item on our charter that we have barely discussed, namely failure detection. The charter item says that the work item is:
>
>> - A standards-track IKEv2 extension that allows an IKE peer to quickly and securely detect that its opposite peer, while currently reachable, has lost its IKEv2/IPsec state. Changes to how the peers recover from this situation are beyond the scope of this work item, as is improving the detection of an unreachable or dead peer. Ideas from draft-nir-ike-qcd-05 and draft-detienne-ikev2-recovery-03 can be used as starting points.
>
> I gave a brief presentation on failure detection at the last IETF meeting in Anaheim. The slides are at<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/77/slides/ipsecme-4.pdf>, and the following is directly derived from them.
>
> The basic problem being covered by the new extension is:
> -  Alice and Bob have SAs up and ESP traffic is flowing, but then Bob crashes
> -  Alice keeps sending ESP to Bob
> -  When Bob finally comes back up, he replies to Alice's ESP with INVALID_SPI notifications
> -  Alice starts sending IKE liveness checks until she is "sure" that the INVALID_SPI responses are not a DoS attack; this could be "several minutes"
> -  Then Alice rekeys
>
> Some other problem cases include:
> -  Bob has two gateways in some failover architecture. One gateway goes down, the other gateway detects this and wants to tell Alice to rekey
> -  Bob has a bunch of gateways in some load-balancing or cluster architecture. One gateway is taken down on purpose, and the system wants to tell Alice to rekey
> -  Protocol robustness:  Bob's gateway loses the SA without going down
>
> Our primary goal is that, as soon as Bob starts sending INVALID_SPI responses to Alice's ESP traffic, Bob and Alice should be able to quickly determine that this is not an attack and therefore they probably want to rekey right away. Note that if Bob and Alice are also using session resumption, they can use that instead of rekeying; however, in the discussion here, we always use "rekey" to mean "rekey or, if appropriate, resume". The proposed extension does not include the actual rekeying, just the context for them to do it now.
>
> The WG has seen two proposed solutions, QCD and SIR. The following are brief summaries of the two proposals.
>
> In QCD (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ike-qcd>), Bob gives Alice a secret token in the AUTH exchange, and then puts the token in his INVALID_SPI response as a way to say "this SPI is gone". Bob must remember his tokens across reboots, or derive tokens from a master token that he memorizes across reboots, and Alice must remember the token (or a hash of it) for each SA.
>
> In SIR (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ditienne-ikev2-recovery>), Alice sends a new Check_SPI query with a stateless cookie, essentially asking "do you really not know about this
> SPI?"; Bob responds by saying "I'm sure I don't know that SPI". Nothing is stored on either side, so a man-in-the-middle can attack this to cause an unnecessary rekey just as they can normal IKE.
>
> The first task for the WG is to decide which of these two quite different approaches to take. After we have done that, we can then hone the chosen proposal. During earlier discussion of the proposals, the following criteria were mentioned as ones that the WG should consider when thinking about the approaches:
>
> -  Support for different scenarios (load balancers, active clusters, failover)
> -  Security from man-in-the-middle DoS attacks
> -  Resources used
> -  Intellectual property rights
>
> So: please start discussing the two proposals with respect to these criteria or other criteria that are important to you. In a few weeks (hopefully well before the Maastricht meeting), I make a call for consensus and see where it leads us.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec