⭐ 欢迎来到虫虫下载站! | 📦 资源下载 📁 资源专辑 ℹ️ 关于我们
⭐ 虫虫下载站

📄 rfc2709.txt

📁 著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.
💻 TXT
📖 第 1 页 / 共 2 页
字号:
Network Working Group                                       P. SrisureshRequest for Comments: 2709                           Lucent TechnologiesCategory: Informational                                     October 1999         Security Model with Tunnel-mode IPsec for NAT DomainsStatus of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   There are a variety of NAT flavors, as described in [Ref 1]. Of the   domains supported by NATs, only Realm-Specific IP clients are able to   pursue end-to-end IPsec secure sessions. However, all flavors of NAT   are capable of offering tunnel-mode IPsec security to private domain   hosts peering with nodes in external realm. This document describes a   security model by which tunnel-mode IPsec security can be architected   on NAT devices. A section is devoted to describing how security   policies may be transparently communicated to IKE (for automated KEY   exchange) during Quick Mode. Also outlined are applications that can   benefit from the Security Model described.1. Introduction and Overview   NAT devices provide transparent routing to end hosts trying to   communicate from disparate address realms, by modifying IP and   transport headers en-route. This solution works best when the end   user identifier (such as host name) is different from the address   used to locate end user.   End-to-end application level payload security can be provided for   applications that do not embed realm-specific information in payloads   that is meaningless to one of the end-users. Applications that do   embed realm-specific information in payload will require an   application level gateway (ALG) to make the payload meaningful in   both realms. However, applications that require assistance of an ALG   en-route cannot pursue end-to-end application level security.Srisuresh                    Informational                      [Page 1]RFC 2709                Security for NAT Domains            October 1999   All applications traversing a NAT device, irrespective of whether   they require assistance of an ALG or not, can benefit from IPsec   tunnel-mode security, when NAT device acts as the IPsec tunnel end   point.   Section 2 below defines terms specific to this document.   Section 3 describes how tunnel mode IPsec security can be recognized   on NAT devices. IPsec Security architecture, format and operation of   various types of security mechanisms may be found in [Ref 2], [Ref 3]   and [Ref 4].  This section does not address how session keys and   policies are exchanged between a NAT device acting as IPsec gateway   and external peering nodes. The exchange could have taken place   manually or using any of known automatic exchange techniques.   Section 4 assumes that Public Key based IKE protocol [Ref 5] may be   used to automate exchange of security policies, session keys and   other Security Association (SA) attributes. This section describes a   method by which security policies administered for a private domain   may be translated for communicating with external nodes. Detailed   description of IKE protocol operation may be found in [Ref 5] and   [Ref 6].   Section 5 describes applications of the security model described in   the document. Applications listed include secure external realm   connectivity for private domain hosts and secure remote access to   enterprise mobile hosts.2. Terminology   Definitions for majority of terms used in this document may be found   in one of (a) NAT Terminology and Considerations document [Ref 1],   (b) IP security Architecture document [Ref 2], or (c) Internet Key   Enchange (IKE) document [Ref 5]. Below are terms defined specifically   for this document.2.1. Normal-NAT   The term "Normal-NAT" is introduced to distinguish normal NAT   processing from the NAT processing used for secure packets embedded   within an IPsec secure tunnel. "Normal-NAT" is the normal NAT   processing as described in [Ref 1].2.2. IPsec Policy Controlled NAT (IPC-NAT)   The term "IPsec Policy Controlled NAT" (IPC-NAT, for short) is   defined to describe the NAT transformation applied as an extension of   IPsec transformation to packets embedded within an IP-IP tunnel, forSrisuresh                    Informational                      [Page 2]RFC 2709                Security for NAT Domains            October 1999   which the NAT node is a tunnel end point. IPC-NAT function is   essentially an adaptation of NAT extensions to embedded packets of   tunnel-mode IPsec. Packets subject to IPC-NAT processing are   beneficiaries of IPsec security between the NAT device and an   external peer entity, be it a host or a gateway node.   IPsec policies place restrictions on what NAT mappings are used.  For   example, IPsec access control security policies to a peer gateway   will likely restrict communication to only certain addresses and/or   port numbers. Thus, when NAT performs translations, it must insure   that the translations it performs are consist with the security   policies.   Just as with Normal-NAT, IPC-NAT function can assume any of NAT   flavors, including Traditional-NAT, Bi-directional-NAT and Twice-NAT.   An IPC-NAT device would support both IPC-NAT and normal-NAT   functions.3. Security model of IPC-NAT   The IP security architecture document [Ref 2] describes how IP   network level security may be accomplished within a globally unique   address realm. Transport and tunnel mode security are discussed. For   purposes of this document, we will assume IPsec security to mean   tunnel mode IPsec security, unless specified otherwise. Elements   fundamental to this security architecture are (a) Security Policies,   that determine which packets are permitted to be subject to Security   processing, and (b) Security Association Attributes that identify the   parameters for security processing, including IPsec protocols,   algorithms and session keys to be applied.   Operation of tunnel mode IPsec security on a device that does not   support Network Address Translation may be described as below in   figures 1 and 2.            +---------------+  No  +---------------------------+            |               | +--->|Forward packet in the Clear|   Outgoing |Does the packet| |    |Or Drop, as appropriate.   |   -------->|match Outbound |-|    +---------------------------+   Packet   |Security       | |    +-------------+            |Policies?      | |Yes |Perform      | Forward            |               | +--->|Outbound     |--------->            +---------------+      |Security     | IPsec Pkt                                   |(Tunnel Mode)|                                   +-------------+   Figure 1. Operation of Tunnel-Mode IPsec on outgoing packets.Srisuresh                    Informational                      [Page 3]RFC 2709                Security for NAT Domains            October 1999   IPsec packet +----------+          +----------+   destined to  |Perform   | Embedded |Does the  | No(Drop)   ------------>|Inbound   |--------->|Pkt match |-------->   the device   |Security  | Packet   |Inbound SA| Yes(Forward)                |(Detunnel)|          |Policies? |                +----------+          +----------+   Figure 2. Operation of Tunnel-Mode IPsec on Incoming packets   A NAT device that provides tunnel-mode IPsec security would be   required to administer security policies based on private realm   addressing. Further, the security policies determine the IPsec tunnel   end-point peer. As a result, a packet may be required to undergo   different type of NAT translation depending upon the tunnel end-point   the IPsec node peers with. In other words, IPC-NAT will need a unique   set of NAT maps for each security policy configured. IPC-NAT will   perform address translation in conjunction with IPsec processing   differently with each peer, based on security policies.  The   following diagrams (figure 3 and figure 4) illustrate the operation   of IPsec tunneling in conjunction with NAT. Operation of an IPC-NAT   device may be distinguished from that of an IPsec gateway that does   not support NAT as follows.        (1) IPC-NAT device has security policies administered using            private realm addressing. A traditional IPsec gateway will            have its security policies administered using a single realm            (say, external realm) addressing.        (2) Elements fundamental to the security model of an IPC-NAT            device includes IPC-NAT address mapping  (and other NAT            parameter definitions) in conjunction with Security policies            and SA attributes. Fundamental elements of a traditional            IPsec gateway are limited only to Security policies and SA            attributes.            +---------------+      +-------------------------+            |               |  No  | Apply Normal-NAT or Drop|   Outgoing |Does the packet| +--->| as appropriate          |   -------->|match Outbound |-|    +-------------------------+   Packet   |Security       | |    +---------+  +-------------+   (Private |Policies?      | |Yes |Perform  |  |Perform      |Forward    Domain) |               | +--->|Outbound |->|Outbound     |-------->            +---------------+      |NAT      |  |Security     |IPsec Pkt                                   |(IPC-NAT)|  |(Tunnel mode)|                                   +---------+  +-------------+   Figure 3. Tunnel-Mode IPsec on an IPC-NAT device for outgoing pktsSrisuresh                    Informational                      [Page 4]RFC 2709                Security for NAT Domains            October 1999   IPsec Pkt +----------+          +---------+  +----------+   destined  |Perform   | Embedded |Perform  |  |Does the  |No(Drop)   --------->|Inbound   |--------->|Inbound  |->|Pkt match |-------->   to device |Security  | Packet   |NAT      |  |Inbound SA|Yes(Forward)   (External |(Detunnel)|          |(IPC-NAT)|  |Policies? |    Domain)  +----------+          +---------+  +----------+   Figure 4. Tunnel-Mode IPsec on an IPC-NAT device for Incoming pkts   Traditional NAT is session oriented, allowing outbound-only sessions   to be translated. All other flavors of NAT are Bi-directional.  Any   and all flavors of NAT mapping may be used in conjunction with the   security policies and secure processing on an IPC-NAT device. For   illustration purposes in this document, we will assume tunnel mode   IPsec on a Bi-directional NAT device.   Notice however that a NAT device capable of providing security across   IPsec tunnels can continue to support Normal-NAT for packets that do   not require IPC-NAT. Address mapping and other NAT parameter   definitions for Normal-NAT and IPC-NAT are distinct. Figure 3   identifies how a NAT device distinguishes between outgoing packets   that need to be processed through Normal-NAT vs. IPC-NAT. As for   packets incoming from external realm, figure 4 outlines packets that   may be subject to IPC-NAT. All other packets are subject to Normal-   NAT processing only.4. Operation of IKE protocol on IPC-NAT device.   IPC-NAT operation described in the previous section can be   accomplished based on manual session key exchange or using an   automated key Exchange protocol between peering entities. In this   section, we will consider adapting IETF recommended Internet Key   Exchange (IKE) protocol on a IPC-NAT device for automatic exchange of   security policies and SA parameters. In other words, we will focus on   the operation of IKE in conjunction with tunnel mode IPsec on NAT   devices. For the reminder of this section, we will refer NAT device   to mean IPC-NAT device, unless specified otherwise.   IKE is based on UDP protocol and uses public-key encryption to   exchange session keys and other attributes securely across an address   realm. The detailed protocol and operation of IKE in the context of   IP may be found in [Ref 3] and [Ref 4]. Essentially, IKE has 2   phases.   In the first phase, IKE peers operate in main or aggressive mode to   authenticate each other and set up a secure channel between   themselves. A NAT device  has an interface to the external realm and   is no different from any other node in the realm to negotiate phase ISrisuresh                    Informational                      [Page 5]RFC 2709                Security for NAT Domains            October 1999   with peer external nodes. The NAT device may assume any of the valid   Identity types and authentication methodologies necessary to   communicate and authenticate with peers in the realm. The NAT device   may also interface with a Certification Authority (CA) in the realm   to retrieve certificates  and perform signature validation.   In the second phase, IKE peers operate in Quick Mode to exchange   policies and IPsec security proposals to negotiate and agree upon   security transformation algorithms, policies, keys, lifetime and   other security attributes. During this phase, IKE process must   communicate with IPsec Engine to (a) collect secure session   attributes and other parameters  to negotiate with peer IKE nodes,   and to (b) notify security parameters agreed upon (with peer) during   the negotiation.   An IPC-NAT device, operating as IPsec gateway, has the security   policies administered based on private realm addressing. An ALG will   be required to translate policies from private realm addressing into   external addressing, as the IKE process needs to communicate these   policies to peers in external realm. Note, IKE datagrams are not   subject to any NAT processing. IKE-ALG simply translates select   portions of IKE payload as per the NAT map defined for the policy   match. The following diagram illustrates how an IKE-ALG process   interfaces with IPC-NAT to take the security policies and IPC-NAT

⌨️ 快捷键说明

复制代码 Ctrl + C
搜索代码 Ctrl + F
全屏模式 F11
切换主题 Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键 ?
增大字号 Ctrl + =
减小字号 Ctrl + -