6tisch Working Group D. Dujovne Internet-Draft Universidad Diego Portales Intended status: Standards Track M. Richardson Expires: 16 August 2020 Sandelman Software Works 13 February 2020 IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element encapsulation of 6TiSCH Join and Enrollment Information draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-10 Abstract In TSCH mode of IEEE STD 802.15.4, opportunities for broadcasts are limited to specific times and specific channels. Nodes in a TSCH network typically frequently send Enhanced Beacon (EB) frames to announce the presence of the network. This document provides a mechanism by which small details critical for new nodes (pledges) and long sleeping nodes may be carried within the Enhanced Beacon. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on 16 August 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IE for ICMPv6 February 2020 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Use of BCP 14 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2. Layer-2 Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3. Layer-3 synchronization: IPv6 Router Solicitations and Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction [RFC7554] describes the use of the time-slotted channel hopping (TSCH) mode of [ieee802154]. As further detailed in [RFC8180], an Enhanced Beacon (EB) is transmitted during a slot designated as a broadcast slot. 1.1. Use of BCP 14 Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Other terminology can be found in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] in section 2.1. 1.2. Layer-2 Synchronization As explained in section 6 of [RFC8180], the Enhanced Beacon (EB) has a number of purposes: synchronization of ASN and Join Metric, carrying timeslot template identifier, carrying the channel hopping sequence identifier, and indicating the TSCH SlotFrame. The EB is used by nodes already part of a TSCH network to announce its existence. Receiving an EB allows a Joining Node (pledge) to learn about the network and synchronize to it. The EB may also be Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IE for ICMPv6 February 2020 used as a means for a node already part of the network to re- synchronize [RFC7554]. There is a limited number of timeslots designated as a broadcast slot by each router in the network. Considering 10ms slots and a slot- frame length of 100, these slots are rare and could result in only 1 slot/s for a broadcast, which needs to be used for the beacon. Additional broadcasts for Router Advertisements, or Neighbor Discovery could even more scarce. 1.3. Layer-3 synchronization: IPv6 Router Solicitations and Advertisements At layer 3, [RFC4861] defines a mechanism by which nodes learn about routers by receiving multicast Router Advertisements (RA). If no RA is heard within a set time, then a Router Solicitation (RS) may be sent as multicast, to which an RA will be received, usually unicast. Although [RFC6775] reduces the amount of multicast necessary to do address resolution via Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages, it still requires multicast of either RAs or RS. This is an expensive operation for two reasons: First, there are few multicast timeslots for unsolicited RAs; and second, if a pledge node does not hear an RA, and decides to send a RS, a broadcast aloha slot is consumed with unencrypted traffic. In this case, a unicast RS may be sent in response. This is a particularly acute issue for the join process for the following reasons: 1. use of a multicast slot by even a non-malicious unauthenticated node for a Router Solicitation (RS) may overwhelm that time slot. 2. it may require many seconds of on-time before a new pledge hears a Router Advertisement (RA) that it can use. 3. a new pledge may listen to many Enhanced Beacons (EB) before it can pick an appropriate network and/or closest Join Assistant to attach to. If it must listen for a RA as well as find the Enhanced Beacon (EB), then the process may take a very long time. This document defines a new IETF IE subtype to provide join and enrollment information to prospective pledges in a more efficient way. Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IE for ICMPv6 February 2020 2. Protocol Definition [RFC8137] creates a registry for new IETF IE subtypes. This document allocates a new subtype. The new IE subtype structure is as follows. As explained in [RFC8137] the length of the Sub-Type Content can be calculated from the container, so no length information is necessary. 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TBD-XXX |R|P| res | proxy prio | rank priority | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------+-------------+-----------------+ | pan priority | | +---------------+ + | Join Proxy lower-64 | + (present if P=1) + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | network ID | + variable length, up to 16 bytes + ~ ~ + + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: IE subtype structure R: the Router Advertisement R-flag is set if the sending node will act as a Router for host-only nodes that need addressing via unicast Router Solicitation messages. in most cases, every node sending a beacon will set this flag, and in a typical mesh, this will be every single node. When this bit is not set, it indicates that this node may be under provisioned, or may have no additional slots for additional nodes. This could make this node more interesting to an attacker. P: if the Proxy Address P-flag is set, then the lower 64-bits of the Join Proxy's link-local address follows the network ID. If the Proxy Address bit is not set, then the Link Layer address of the Join Proxy is identical to the Layer-2 8-byte address used to originate this enhanced beacon. In either case, the destination Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IE for ICMPv6 February 2020 layer-2 address of this beacon may use the layer-2 address which was used to originate the beacon. this bit only indicates if another part of the structure is present, and has little security or privacy impact. proxy priority (proxy prio): this field indicates the willingness of the sender to act as join proxy. Lower value indicates greater willingness to act as a Join Proxy as described in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]. Values range 0x00 (most willing) to 0x7e (least willing). A priority of 0x7f indicates that the announcer should never be considered as a viable enrollment proxy. Only unenrolled pledges look at this value. lower values in this field indicate that the transmitter may have more capacity to handle unencrypted traffic. A higher value may indicate that the transmitter is low on neighbor cache entries, or other resources. rank priority: the rank "priority" is set by the 6LR which sent the beacon and is an indication of how willing this 6LR is to serve as an RPL parent within a particular network ID. This is a local value to be determined in other work. It might be calculated from RPL rank, and it may include some modifications based upon current number of children, or number of neighbor cache entries available. This value MUST be ignored by pledges, it is for enrolled devices only. Lower values are better. an attacker can use this value to determine which nodes are potentially more interesting. Nodes which are less willing to be parents likely have more traffic, and an attacker could use this information to determine which nodes would be more interesting to attack or disrupt. pan priority: the pan priority is a value set by the DODAG root to indicate the relative priority of this LLN compared to those with different PANIDs. This value may be used as part of the enrollment priority, but typically is used by devices which have already enrolled, and need to determine which PAN to pick. Unenrolled pledges MAY consider this value when selecting a PAN to join. Enrolled devices MAY consider this value when looking for an eligible parent device. an attacker can use this value, along with the observed PANID in the Beacon to determine which PANIDs have more network resources, and may have more interesting traffic. Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IE for ICMPv6 February 2020 Join Proxy lower-64: if the P bit is set, then 64 bits (8 bytes) of address are present. This field provides the suffix of the Link- Local address of the Join Proxy. The associated prefix is well- known as fe80::/64. this field communicates a lower-64 bits that should be used for this nodes' layer-3 address, if it should not be derived from the layer-2 address. Communication with the Join Proxy occurs in the clear, this field avoids the need for an additional service discovery process for the case where the L3 address is not derived from the L2 address. An attacker will see both L2 and L3 addresses, so this field provides no new information. network ID: this is a variable length field, up to 16-bytes in size that uniquely identifies this network, potentially among many networks that are operating in the same frequencies in overlapping physical space. The length of this field can be calculated as being whatever is left in the Information Element. In a 6tisch network, where RPL [RFC6550] is used as the mesh routing protocol, the network ID can be constructed from a SHA256 hash of the prefix (/64) of the network. That is just a suggestion for a default value. In some LLNs where multiple PANIDs may lead to the same management device (the JRC), then a common value that is the same across all PANs MUST be configured. If the the network ID is derived as suggested, then it will an opaque, seemingly random value, and will reveal nothing in of itself. An attacker can match this value across many transmissions to map the extent of a network beyond what the PANID might already provide. 3. Security Considerations All of the contents of this Information Element are sent in the clear. The containing Enhanced Beacon is not encrypted. This is a restriction in the cryptographic architecture of the TSCH mechanism. In order to decrypt or do integrity checking of layer-2 frames in TSCH, the TSCH Absolute Slot Number (ASN) is needed. The Enhanced Beacon provides the ASN to new (and long-sleeping) nodes. The Enhanced Beacon is authenticated at the layer-2 level using 802.15.4 mechanisms using the network-wide keying material. Nodes which are enrolled will have the network-wide keying material and can validate the beacon, providing them with a trusted Pledges which have not yet enrolled are unable to authenticate the beacons, and will be forced to temporarily take the contents on Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IE for ICMPv6 February 2020 faith. After enrollment, a newly enrolled node will be able to return to the beacon and validate it. In addition to the enrollment and join information described in this document, the Enhanced Beacon contains a description of the TSCH schedule to be used by the transmitter of this packet. The schedule can provide an attacker with a list of channels and frequencies on which communication will occur. Knowledge of this can help an attacker to more efficiently jam communications, although there is future work being considered to make some of the schedule less visible. Encrypting the schedule does not prevent an attacker from jamming, but rather increases the energy cost of doing that jamming. 4. Privacy Considerations The use of a network ID may reveal information about the network. The use of a SHA256 hash of the DODAGID, rather than using the DODAGID (which is usually derived from the LLN prefix) directly provides some privacy for the the addresses used within the network. The DODAGID is usually the IPv6 address of the root of the RPL mesh. An interloper with a radio sniffer would be able to use the network ID to map out the extent of the mesh network. 5. IANA Considerations Allocate a new number TBD-XXX from Registry IETF IE Sub-type ID, as defined by [RFC8137]. This entry should be called 6tisch-Join-Info, and should refer to this document. 6. Acknowledgements Thomas Watteyne provided extensive editorial comments on the document. Carles Gomez Montenegro generated a detailed review of the document at WGLC. Tim Evens provided a number of useful editorial suggestions. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [BCP14] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson, "Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH", Work in Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IE for ICMPv6 February 2020 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal- security-15, 10 December 2019, . [ieee802154] IEEE standard for Information Technology, ., "IEEE Std. 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks", 2015, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, . [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, . [RFC8137] Kivinen, T. and P. Kinney, "IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element for the IETF", RFC 8137, DOI 10.17487/RFC8137, May 2017, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-28, 29 October 2019, . [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IE for ICMPv6 February 2020 JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, . [RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554, DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015, . [RFC8180] Vilajosana, X., Ed., Pister, K., and T. Watteyne, "Minimal IPv6 over the TSCH Mode of IEEE 802.15.4e (6TiSCH) Configuration", BCP 210, RFC 8180, DOI 10.17487/RFC8180, May 2017, . Authors' Addresses Diego Dujovne (editor) Universidad Diego Portales Escuela de Informatica y Telecomunicaciones, Av. Ejercito 441 Santiago, Region Metropolitana Chile Phone: +56 (2) 676-8121 Email: diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl Michael Richardson Sandelman Software Works Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca Dujovne & Richardson Expires 16 August 2020 [Page 9]