Network Working Group T. Henderson Internet-Draft The Boeing Company Expires: August 28, 2006 P. Nikander Ericsson Research NomadicLab February 24, 2006 Using HIP with Legacy Applications draft-henderson-hip-applications-02 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 August 28, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract The Host Identity Protocol and architecture (HIP) proposes to add a cryptographic name space for network stack names. From an application viewpoint, HIP-enabled systems support a new address family (e.g., AF_HOST), but it may be a long time until such HIP- aware applications are widely deployed even if host systems are upgraded. This informational document discusses implementation and API issues relating to using HIP in situations in which the system is Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 HIP-aware but the applications are not. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Approaches for supporting legacy applications . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Using IP addresses in applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Using DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Connecting directly to a HIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 1. Introduction The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [1] is an experimental effort in the IETF and IRTF to study a new public-key-based name space for use as host identifiers in Internet protocols. Fully deployed, the HIP architecture will permit applications to explicitly request the system to connect to another named host by expressing a location- independent name of the host when the system call to connect is performed. However, there will be a transition period during which systems become HIP-enabled but applications are not. When applications and systems are both HIP-aware, the coordination between the application and the system can be straightforward. For example, using the terminology of the widely used sockets API, the application can issue a system call to connect to another host by naming it explicitly, and the system can perform the necessary name- to-address mapping to assign appropriate routable addresses to the packets. To enable this, a new address family (e.g., AF_HOST) could be defined, and additional API extensions could be defined (such as allowing IP addresses to be passed in the system call, along with the host name, as hints of where to initially try to reach the host). This note does not define a native HIP API such as described above. Rather, this note is concerned with the scenario in which the application is not HIP-aware and a traditional IP-address-based API is used by the application. To use HIP in such a situation, there are a few basic possibilities: i) allow applications to use IP addresses as before, and provide a mapping from IP address to host identity (and back to IP address) within the system, ii) take advantage of domain name resolution to provide the application with either an alias for the host identifier or (in the case of IPv6) the host identity tag (HIT) itself, and iii) support the use of HITs directly (without prior DNS resolution) in place of IPv6 addresses. This note describes several variations of the above strategies and suggests some pros and cons to each approach. When HITs are used (rather than IP addresses) as peer names at the system API, they can provide a type of "channel binding" (Section 1.1.6 of [2]) in that the ESP association formed by HIP is cryptographically bound to the name (HIT) invoked by the calling application. Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 2. Terminology Host Identity Tag: A 128-bit quantity formed by the hash of a Host Identity. More details are available in [1]. Local Scope Identifier: A 32- or 128-bit quantity locally representing the Host Identity at the IPv4 or IPv6 API. Referral: An event when the application passes what it believes to be an IP address to another application instance on another host, within its application data stream. An example is the FTP PORT command. Resolver: The system function used by applications to resolve domain names to IP addresses. Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 3. Approaches for supporting legacy applications This section provides examples of how legacy applications, using legacy APIs, can operate over a HIP-enabled system and use HIP. The examples are organized by the name used by an application (or application user) to name the peer system: an IP address, a domain name, or a HIT. While the text below concentrates on the use of the connect system call, the same argumentation can be applied to the unconnected (datagram based) system calls, too. 3.1. Using IP addresses in applications Consider the case in which an application issues a "connect(ip)" system call to connect to a system named by address "ip", but for which we would like to enable HIP to protect the communications. Since the application or user does not (can not) indicate a desire to use HIP through the standard sockets API, the decision to invoke HIP must be done on the basis of host policy. For example, if an IPsec- like implementation of HIP is being used, a policy may be entered into the security policy database that mandates to use or try HIP based on a match on the source or destination IP address, or other factors. There are a number of ways that HIP could be used in such a scenario. Manual configuration: Pre-existing SAs may be available due to previous administrative action. Opportunistically: The system could send an I1 to the Responder with an empty value for Responder HIT. Using DNS: If the responder has host identities registered in the forward DNS zone and has a PTR record in the reverse zone, the initiating system could perform a reverse+forward lookup to learn the HIT associated with the address. Alternatively, the HIT could be stored in the reverse DNS map. However, compared to the opportunistic use, there is no benefit of storing the HIT into the Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 reverse DNS map unless the reverse map is secured with DNSSEC. These types of solutions have the benefit of naturally supporting application-level referrals, since the applications always use IP addresses. They have weaker security properties than the approaches outlined in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3, however, because the binding between host identity and address is weak and not visible to the application or user. In fact, the semantics of the application's "connect(ip)" call may be interpreted as "connect me to the system reachable at IP address ip" but perhaps no stronger semantics than that. HIP can be used in this case to provide perfect forward secrecy and authentication, but not to strongly authenticate the peer at the onset of communications. DNS with DNSSEC, if trusted, may be able to provide some additional initial authentication, but at a cost of initial resolution latency. Using IP addresses at the application layer may not provide the full potential benefits of HIP mobility support. It allows for mobility if one is able to readdress the existing sockets upon a HIP readdress event. However, mobility will break in the connectionless case when an application caches the IP address and repeatedly calls sendto(). 3.2. Using DNS In the previous section, it was pointed out that a HIP-enabled system might make use of DNS to transparently fetch host identifiers prior to the onset of communication. For applications that make use of DNS, the name resolution process is another opportunity to use HIP. If host identities are bound to domain names (with a trusted DNS) the following are possible: Return HIP LSIs instead of IP addresses: The system resolver could be configured to return a Local Scope Identifier (LSI) rather than an IP address, if HIP information is available in the DNS that binds a particular domain name to a host identity, and otherwise to return an IP address as usual. The system can then maintain a mapping between LSI and host identity and perform the appropriate conversion at the system call interface or below. The application uses the LSI as it would an IP address. Locally use a HIP-specific domain name suffix: Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 One drawback to spoofing the DNS resolution is that some applications actually may want to fetch IP addresses (e.g., diagnostic applications such as ping). One way to provide finer granularity on whether the resolver returns an IP address or an LSI is to distinguish by the presence of a domain name suffix. Specifically, if the application requests to resolve "www.example.com.hip" (or some similar suffix), then the system returns an LSI, while if the application requests to resolve "www.example.com", IP address(es) are returned as usual. Caution against the use of FQDN suffixes is discussed in [3]. If the LSI is non-routable, a couple of potential hazards arise. First, applications that perform referrals may pass the LSI to another system that has no system context to resolve the LSI back to a host identity or an IP address. Note that these are the same type of applications that will likely break if used over certain types of NATs. Second, applications may cache the results of DNS queries for a long time, and it may be hard for a HIP system to determine when to perform garbage collection on the LSI bindings. It may be possible for an LSI to be routable, but such a case may not have the level of security in the binding to host identity that a HIT has with the host identity. For example, a special IP address that has some location invariance is the identifier-address discussed in [4]. In general, LSIs considered to date for HIP have been non- routable. 3.3. Connecting directly to a HIT The previous two sections describe the use of IP addresses and and LSIs as "handles" to a host identity. A third approach, for IPv6 applications, is to configure the application to connect directly to a HIT (e.g., "connect(HIT)" as a socket call). Although more cumbersome for human users (due to the flat HIT name space) than using either IPv6 addresses or domain names, this scenario has stronger security semantics, because the application is asking the system to connect specifically to the named peer system. It may be hard in this case for a system to distinguish between a HIT and a routable IPv6 address. Elsewhere it has been proposed [5] that HITs be precluded (temporarily) from using highest-ordered bits that correspond to IPv6 addresses, so that at least in the near term, a system could differentiate between a HIT and an IPv6 address by inspection. Another challenge with this approach is in actually finding the IP addresses to use, based on the HIT. Some type of HIT resolution service would be needed in this case. Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 A third challenge of this approach is in supporting referrals to possibly non-HIP-aware hosts. However, since most communications in this case would likely be to other HIP-aware hosts (else the initial connect() would fail), the problem may be instead if the peer host supports HIP but is not able to perform HIT resolution for some reason. Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 4. Security Considerations In this section we discuss the security of the system in general terms, outlining some of the security properties. However, this section is not intended to provide a complete risk analysis. Such an analysis would, in any case, be dependent on the actual application using HIP, and is therefore considered out of scope. The three outlined scenarios differ considerably in their security properties. There are further differences related to whether DNSSEC is used or not, and whether the DNSSEC zones are considered trustworthy enough from an application point of view. When IP addresses are used to represent the peer system, the security properties depend on the the configuration method. With manual configuration, the system's security is comparable to a non-HIP system with similar IPsec policies. The security semantics of an opportunistic key exchange are roughly equal to current non-secured IP; the exchange is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. However, the system is less vulnerable to connection hijacking attacks. If the DNS is used, if both maps are secured (or the HITs stored in the reverse MAP) and the client trusts the DNSSEC signatures, the system may provide a fairly high security level. However, much depends on the details of the implementation, the security and administrative practises used when signing the DNS zones, and other factors. Using the forward DNS to map a DNS name into an LSI is a case that is closest to the most typical use scenarios today. If DNSSEC is used, the result is fairly similar to the current use of certificates with TLS. If DNSSEC is not used, the result is fairly similar to the current use of plain IP, with the exception that HIP provides protection against connection hijacking attacks. If the application is basing its operations on HITs, the connections become automatically secured due to the implicit channel bindings in HIP. That is, when the application makes a connect(HIT) system call, the resulting connection will either be connected to a node possessing the corresponding private key or the connection attempt will fail. 5. References [1] Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-04 (work in progress), October 2005. [2] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000. Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 [3] Faltstrom, P., "Design Choices When Expanding DNS", draft-iab-dns-choices-03 (work in progress), February 2006. [4] Bagnulo, M. and E. Nordmark, "Level 3 multihoming shim protocol", draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03 (work in progress), December 2005. [5] Nikander, P., Laganier, J., and F. Dupont, "An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Keyed Hash Identifiers (KHI)", draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01 (work in progress), February 2006. Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 Authors' Addresses Tom Henderson The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA USA Email: thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com Pekka Nikander Ericsson Research NomadicLab JORVAS FIN-02420 FINLAND Phone: +358 9 299 1 Email: pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Using HIP with Legacy Applications February 2006 Intellectual Property Statement 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. Disclaimer of Validity 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 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. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Henderson & Nikander Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 12]