HIPRG H. Tschofenig Internet-Draft Siemens Expires: January 19, 2006 J. Ott Universitaet Bremen H. Schulzrinne Columbia U. T. Henderson The Boeing Company G. Camarillo Ericsson July 18, 2005 Interaction between SIP and HIP draft-tschofenig-hiprg-host-identities-02.txt 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 January 19, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract This document investigates the interworking between the Session Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) and the benefits that may arise from their combined operation. The aspect of exchanging Host Identities (or Host Identity Tags) in SIP/SDP for later usage with the Host Identity Protocol Protocol (HIP) is described in more detail as an example of this interworking. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Exchanging Host Identities with SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2 SDP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 27 Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 1. Introduction SIP [1] enables a pair of user agents to establish and maintain sessions. The communication typically involves SIP proxies before prior to communication between the end points taking place. As part of the initial exchange, a number of parameters are exchanged. Certain of these parameters are relevant to security. Examples of such parameters are keying material and other cryptographic information that is used in order to establish a security association for the protection of subsequent data traffic. HIP (see [2] and [3]) propose an architecture with a cryptographic namespace and a layer between the network and the transport layer. This layer is used in order to shield applications from the impact of multi-homing, readdressing and mobility. A protocol, called the Host Identity Protocol, is used in order to establish state at the two end hosts. This state includes the establishment of IPsec SAs. Several areas may benefit from the aformentioned interworking. These include the following. Mobility: Mobility support can be provided at different layers in the protocol stack. SIP can offer terminal mobility, as described in [4]. Prior to a call, mobility is handled by re-registration with the home registrar. For mid-call mobility, the moving node sends a re-INVITE directly to the correspondent host, or via the SIP proxies if, during the initial call setup, the proxy had inserted a Record-Route header. Session mobility in SIP is implemented through the usage of the SIP REFER method [9]. A discussion of session mobility with SIP is, for example, provided in [10]. The basic SIP security mechanisms are used in order to protect the signalling exchanges that refer to the above-mentioned terminal and session mobility. The basic SIP mobility has two main limitations. Firstly, it is unable to move TCP sessions to new IP addresses. This could be accomplished by TCP extensions, such as TCP-Migrate or M-TCP or by the usage of SCTP (where possible). The second limitation is the low speed of handoffs. One can shield the movement of the end hosts against each other though the usage of HIP. HIP itself, however, does not offer micromobility solutions or mechanisms to deal with the double- movement problem. Extensions have been defined, such as the HIP rendezvous concept [11] or Hi3 [12] that, among other things, deal with initial reachability and provide additional mobility Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 mechanisms. A later version of this document will also investigate the interworking of SIP with these HIP extensions. In summary, current HIP mobility mechanisms do not offer substantial additional features or security over what SIP provides. This applies especially to the typical scenario where reliable transport protocols are not used in SIP user data flows. Middlebox Traversal: The work on traversing Network Address Translators with SIP and media traffic has focused on MIDCOM and the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) methodology. ICE relies on other protocols, such as STUN [13] and TURN [14] in order to create a NAT binding. HIP might be better suited for the traversal of HIP-aware NATs, since, in this setting, the NATs can inspect the HIP signaling exchange and create the necessary bindings. This approach is similar to the one proposed by the NSIS working group where a path-coupled signaling protocol is used to interact with these middleboxes to create NAT bindings (and firewall pin-holes). The NATFW-NSLP [15] is a protocol proposal that utilizes the NSIS protocol suite. The travesal of HIP unaware NATs is detailed in [16] and a discussion about NAT and firewall traversal of HIP- aware devices is given in [17]. Denial of Service Prevention: SIP follows the offer/answer model. The offerer generates an offer that contains, among other things, the IP address the answerer is expected to send its media to. The offer/answer model can be used in order to perform denial of service attacks against third parties. The offerer generates an offer with the IP address of the victim and the answerer, on reception of such offer, starts sending media to the victim. If the session consists of media sent over a connection-oriented transport protocol such as TCP, the victim is unlikely to respond to the connection establishment request (e.g. the initial SYN in TCP) and the connection is not established. However, if the session consists of media sent over RTP and UDP, the sender just floods the victim with RTP packets. The ICMP "not reachable" messages generated by the victim may or may not stop the attack. Firewalls in the path may discard these packets or the RTP library of the sender may ignore them. The use of HIP would prevent this type of attack because the victim would not accept the incoming HIP message. Of course, in order to further address this type of attack no user agent in the network Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 should accept session descriptions that only provide IP addresses in order to send RTP data. Sessions that did not use HIP would need to use a different method to deal with this attack. An example of such a method consists of using ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment) [18] as a return routability test before starting to send media. Other approaches as part of the HIP overlay infrastructure in combination with HIP Registration servers might also provide the same effect or even a higher degree of security. SRTP and HIP: The Host Identity Protocol is able to establish IPsec security associations, as described in [19]. In the case of SIP for voice communication, end-to-end media protection using SRTP may be applied. HIP supports a variety of cryptographic protection mechanisms for the data traffic, including IPsec, SRTP. The establishment of the necessary parameters and the keying material for enabling SRTP communication is outlined in a separate document [20]. Exchanging Host Identities with SIP: HIP can benefit from existing SIP infrastructure because it enables the distribution of Host Identities or Host Identity Tags, as described in Section 3. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [5]. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 3. Exchanging Host Identities with SIP 3.1 Concept In order to provide security between two HIP end hosts beyond opportunistic encryption it is necessary to securely retrieve the Host Identities. A number of mechanisms can be used including directories (such as DNS) or more advanced concepts for example based on Distributed Hash Tables typically used in peer-to-peer networks. This document suggests to exchange the Host Identities (or Host Identity Tags) as part of the initial SIP exchange inside the SDP payload. As such, the Host Identities can also be bound to the user identities - a concept not used in HIP. The figure below illustrates the main idea: +-----------+ +-----------+ HI/HIT |SIP | HI/HIT |SIP | HI/HIT +------>|Proxy |<---------->|Proxy |<------+ | |Server X | TLS |Server Y | | | +-----------+ +-----------+ | | | | TLS or TLS or | | SIP Digest SIP Digest | | | | | v v +-----------+ SIP and HIP +-----------+ |SIP | <---------------------------------> |SIP | |User Agent | RTP |User Agent | |Alice | <=================================> |Bob | +-----------+ +-----------+ Legend: <--->: Signaling Traffic <===>: Data Traffic Figure 1: SIP Trapezoid The initial SIP signaling messages between Alice and Bob often take place via the proxy servers. This exchange may be protected with TLS (between SIP proxies but also between SIP UAs and SIP proxies) or with SIP digest authentication between SIP UAs and the outbound proxy. Furthermore, SIP end-to-end security mechanisms are also available with S/MIME. This allows two hosts to securely exchange keys even if there are Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 only domain-level public and private keys, as well as secure associations within a domain, thus avoiding the need for a global user-level PKI. This initial message exchange is used to exchange Host Identities between the end points within the SDP payload. Subsequently, when both user agents Alice and Bob communicate directly with each other they are able to reuse the Host Identity for the HIP message exchange. If the SIP communication does not involve third parties (i.e., SIP proxies) and is therefore executed directly between the two SIP UAs then it is not useful to exchange Host Identities in the SDP payloads since the HIP exchange already took place before the first SIP message can be exchanged between the two peers. Still HIP might provide some advantages for the end-to-end communication, such as providing security at the lower layer and mobility and multi-homing support. The security of this approach relies on two properties: The signaling messages and the data traffic traverse a different path. Hence, an adversary needs to be located where it is able to see both, the signaling and the the data traffic. The signaling traffic is often protected. 3.2 SDP Extension This document proposes to enhance the SDP [6] 'k' or 'a' parameter. The 'k' parameter has the following structure: k=: This document defines two new method fields: k=host-identity: k=host-identity-tag: Alternatively, the 'a' parameter could be used like [7] proposes. An example for MIKEY [21] is given in the reference, which could be reused for HIP. As defined in [22], the 'a' parameter has the following structure: Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 a=: Similar to the MIKEY example in [7], this document defines two new method fields: a=key-mgmt:host-identity a=key-mgmt:host-identity-tag Both, the Host Identity and the Host Identity Tag are defined in [3]. The Host Identity contains the public key and a number of cryptographic parameters (such as used algorithms and Diffie-Hellmann public parameters). The Host Identity is base64 encoded. FOR DISCUSSION: The usage of the k parameter as defined in [8] is deprecated. [6] is more appropriate but like 'k=', they come with the caveat that they require a secured e2e signaling path (or SDP is S/MIME protected). One alternative is the usage of MIKEY for the exchange as defined in [7]. Furthermore, and probably more important, it is important to said what the Host Identity is supposed to be used with. They may help avoiding re-INVITEs when underlying IP addresses change to update the 'Contact:' address as well as the addresses in the 'c=' lines for the various media. However, multiple devices may take part in the different media sessions (your laptop doing video in parallel to your hardware IP phone). To support these cases, it may be necessary to exchange _several_ HI(T)s within SDP and denote what they shall be used for. Such a mapping could naturally be achieved for each media stream (even using 'k=' attributes); at simple 'a=' attributes (or the mechanisms from [6]/ [7] would be preferred. SDP only deals with media streams and does not have a notion of user or main device in the background. Hence, the SIP HI(T) may need to go into SIP signaling (rather than be carried in SDP). Logically, this appears to belong to the 'Contact:' header which may be conveyed protected in an S/MIME body (signed and encrypted). Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 3.3 Example This example contains the full details of the example session setup taken from Section 4 of [1]. The message flow is shown in Figure 1 of [1] and resembles the architecture shown in Figure 1. Note that these flows show the minimum required set of header fields; some other header fields such as Allow and Supported would normally be present. In our example Alice uses the following Host Identity Tag (7214148E0433AFE2FA2D48003D31172E) and Bob uses (44A5C522D7EDEDF962E55A0677DB1346) as the HIT. These HITs correspond to the following Host Identities (for convenience we reuse the XML representation format used by the Boeing implementation). ------ Alice: ------ sip:alice@atlanta.com

D757262C4584C44C211F18BD96E5F061C4F0A423F7FE6B6B85B34CEF72CE14 A0D3A222FE08CECE65BE6C265854889DC1EDBD13EC8B274DA9F75BA26CCB98772 3602787E92BA84421F22C3C89CB9B06FD60FE01941DDD77FE6B12893DA76EEBC1 D128D97F0678D772B5341C8506F358214B16A2FAC4B368950387811C7DA33

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schofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 ---- Bob: ---- sip:bob@biloxi.com

F13ACC1693AFD04B9E1E8D2A9DEA6DE8DE4C276BE2BF15B6CFF6E269B0169 378CB0DDDE23D187827015DC67E6768193914B823BDF215D0DAD7A151E434F9E 128DAFB9DEFAE07874621E70D7ED2D34B80A95FA8312B9564E4D118FB525664C 77D

C773218C737EC8EE993B4F2DED30F48EDACE915F 241F32CF48F424B1A75D33B7AE6088E745D9E24E653AE2CAEBE67E4AA1C11 15BA0CC25055A63C139235A95B36EFBC2064AF304C0F8A431D151B2B5854DE61 5168B45B9EAEBF9A88354CA7876E52D169E14E502BEA0CBB98B55AD2AB61620F 498 E481C20D8FBAA84F9C7ED8B5598F60F5A7D03951CA4783841EB8ADDC63D DE11A2F3555C5641F465160AB1E016756D826B0F8CE4FDE33BA17F6FFFA751DA 1389A10E5599802AB1EBE4FD943405819A74FD6F1C9EA2815EE6B651610DF107 5D19F 44A5C522D7EDEDF962E55A0677DB1346 Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 F1 INVITE Alice -> atlanta.com proxy INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 Max-Forwards: 70 To: Bob From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 INVITE Contact: Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=alice 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com s=Session SDP t=0 0 c=IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 1 3 99 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 k=host-identity-tag:7214148E0433AFE2FA2D48003D31172E F2 100 Trying atlanta.com proxy -> Alice SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 To: Bob From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 INVITE Content-Length: 0 Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 F3 INVITE atlanta.com proxy -> biloxi.com proxy INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com ;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 Max-Forwards: 69 To: Bob From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 INVITE Contact: Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=alice 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com s=Session SDP t=0 0 c=IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 1 3 99 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 k=host-identity-tag:7214148E0433AFE2FA2D48003D31172E F4 100 Trying biloxi.com proxy -> atlanta.com proxy SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com ;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1 ;received=192.0.2.2 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 To: Bob From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 INVITE Content-Length: 0 Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 F5 INVITE biloxi.com proxy -> Bob INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.4 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.com;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.1 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com ;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1 ;received=192.0.2.2 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 Max-Forwards: 68 To: Bob From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 INVITE Contact: Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=alice 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com s=Session SDP t=0 0 c=IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 1 3 99 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 k=host-identity-tag:7214148E0433AFE2FA2D48003D31172E F6 180 Ringing Bob -> biloxi.com proxy SIP/2.0 180 Ringing Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.com;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.1 ;received=192.0.2.3 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com ;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1 ;received=192.0.2.2 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 To: Bob ;tag=a6c85cf From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 Contact: CSeq: 314159 INVITE Content-Length: 0 Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 F7 180 Ringing biloxi.com proxy -> atlanta.com proxy SIP/2.0 180 Ringing Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com ;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1 ;received=192.0.2.2 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 To: Bob ;tag=a6c85cf From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 Contact: CSeq: 314159 INVITE Content-Length: 0 F8 180 Ringing atlanta.com proxy -> Alice SIP/2.0 180 Ringing Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 To: Bob ;tag=a6c85cf From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 Contact: CSeq: 314159 INVITE Content-Length: 0 Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 F9 200 OK Bob -> biloxi.com proxy SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.com;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.1 ;received=192.0.2.3 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com ;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1 ;received=192.0.2.2 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 To: Bob ;tag=a6c85cf From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 INVITE Contact: Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 192.0.2.4 s=Session SDP c=IN IP4 192.0.2.4 t=3034423619 0 m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 k=host-identity-tag:44A5C522D7EDEDF962E55A0677DB1346 Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 F10 200 OK biloxi.com proxy -> atlanta.com proxy SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com ;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1 ;received=192.0.2.2 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 To: Bob ;tag=a6c85cf From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 INVITE Contact: Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 192.0.2.4 s=Session SDP c=IN IP4 192.0.2.4 t=3034423619 0 m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 k=host-identity-tag:44A5C522D7EDEDF962E55A0677DB1346 F11 200 OK atlanta.com proxy -> Alice SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 ;received=192.0.2.1 To: Bob ;tag=a6c85cf From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 INVITE Contact: Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 192.0.2.4 s=Session SDP c=IN IP4 192.0.2.4 t=3034423619 0 m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 k=host-identity-tag:44A5C522D7EDEDF962E55A0677DB1346 Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 F12 ACK Alice -> Bob ACK sip:bob@192.0.2.4 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds9 Max-Forwards: 70 To: Bob ;tag=a6c85cf From: Alice ;tag=1928301774 Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 CSeq: 314159 ACK Content-Length: 0 The media session between Alice and Bob is now established. The exchanged HITs are now placed in the pool of known HITs at both end hosts. As such there is also a binding established between URI and HIT at this point. Next a regular HIP base exchange between Alice and Bob is started. As part of the exchange the two end hosts inspect their known-HITs pool and find the previously exchanged parameters. Alice -> Bob: I1: Trigger exchange Alice <- Bob: R1: {Puzzle, D-H(R), HI(R), ESP Transform, HIP Transform }SIG Alice -> Bob: I2: {Solution, LSI(I), SPI(I), D-H(I), ESP Transform, HIP Transform, {H(I)}SK }SIG Alice <- Bob: R2: {LSI(R), SPI(R), HMAC}SIG As a result of this exchange, two IPsec SAs (one for each direction) is established. RTP media traffic can be exchanged between the two end hosts, Alice and Bob, protected by IPsec. If end host mobility takes place then a HIP readdressing exchange takes place which is not detected at the upper layer by UDP/RTP or SIP. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 4. Security Considerations The security considerations currently deal with the proposal of exchanging Host Identities within SIP. A future version of this document will investigate security considerations that address other parts of the interworking as well. This proposal is closely aligned towards the usage of the 'k' parameter in SDP [8]. As a difference, an asymmetric key is exchanged unlike the proposals illustrated in Section 6 of [8]. Section 5.12 of [22] is relevant for this discussion. If an adversary aims to impersonate one of the SIP UAs in the subsequent HIP exchange then it is necessary to replace the Host Identity/Host Identity Tag exchanged in the SIP/SDP messages. Please note that this approach is in a certain sense a re- instantiation of the Purpose-Built-Key (PBK) idea (see [23]). With PBK a hash of a public key is sent from node A to node B. If there was no adversary between A and B at that time to modify the transmitted hash value then subsequent communication interactions which use the public key are secure. This proposal reuses the same idea but focuses on the interworking between different protocols. In fact it would be possible to use the same approach to exchange the hash of an S/MIME certificate which can later be used in subsequent SIP signaling message exchanges. If Host Identities for HIP can be retrieved using a different, more secure method then the Host Identities exchanged with SIP/SDP MUST NOT be used. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 5. Open Issues The authors came accross a number of open issues while thinking about this topic: o The authors discussed the usage of SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY to distribute Host Identities. This approach is particularly interesting, if Host Identities are subject to frequent change. As such, it would resemble the proposal provided with SIPPING-CERT [24]. Thereby the user agent would be allowed to upload its own Host Identity to the Credential Server. Other user agents would use the SUBSCRIBE method to retrieve Host Identities of a particular user. With the help of the NOTIFY message it is possible to learn about a changed Host Identity (e.g., a revoked HI). It is for further study whether this is more useful than the already described proposal. o Is an IANA registration for the method field required? o Is it possible to carry more than one Host Identity/Host Identity Tag in the SDP payload by listing more than one 'k' parameter? o Further investigations are required with regard to the mobility functionality provided by HIP and the potential benefits for end- to-end signaling using SIP, RTP etc. between the SIP UAs. o Middlebox traversal functionality discussed in the context of HIP (such as STUN, TURN, ICE) could potentially be replaced by the HIP middlebox traversal functionality. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 6. Contributors We would like to thank Vesa Torvinen for his contributions to the initial version of this document. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 7. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Steffen Fries, Aarthi Nagarajan, Murugaraj Shanmugam, Franz Muenz, Jochen Grimminger and Joachim Kross for their feedback. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 8. References 8.1 Normative References [1] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [2] Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol Architecture", draft-ietf-hip-arch-02 (work in progress), January 2005. [3] Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-03 (work in progress), June 2005. [4] Schulzrinne, H. and E. Wedlund, "Application-Layer Mobility using SIP, ACM MC2R", , July 2000. [5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. [6] Andreasen, F., "Session Description Protocol Security Descriptions for Media Streams", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-11 (work in progress), June 2005. [7] Arkko, J., "Key Management Extensions for Session Description Protocol (SDP) and Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-kmgmt-ext-15 (work in progress), June 2005. [8] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998. 8.2 Informative References [9] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer Method", RFC 3515, April 2003. [10] Shacham, R., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Mobility", draft-shacham-sipping-session-mobility-01 (work in progress), July 2005. [11] Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension", draft-ietf-hip-rvs-03 (work in progress), July 2005. [12] Nikander, P., "Host Identity Indirection Infrastructure (Hi3)", draft-nikander-hiprg-hi3-00 (work in progress), June 2004. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 [13] Rosenberg, J., "Simple Traversal of UDP Through Network Address Translators (NAT) (STUN)", draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-01 (work in progress), February 2005. [14] Rosenberg, J., "Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN)", draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-07 (work in progress), February 2005. [15] Stiemerling, M., "NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)", draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-06 (work in progress), May 2005. [16] Stiemerling, M., "Middlebox Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Communication", draft-stiemerling-hip-nat-05 (work in progress), July 2005. [17] Tschofenig, H., "NAT and Firewall Traversal for HIP", draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-natfw-traversal-01 (work in progress), February 2005. [18] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Methodology for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Multimedia Session Establishment Protocols", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-04 (work in progress), February 2005. [19] Jokela, P., "Using ESP transport format with HIP", draft-ietf-hip-esp-00 (work in progress), July 2005. [20] Tschofenig, H., "Using SRTP transport format with HIP", draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-srtp-00 (work in progress), July 2005. [21] Arkko, J., Carrara, E., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., and K. Norrman, "MIKEY: Multimedia Internet KEYing", RFC 3830, August 2004. [22] Handley, M., "SDP: Session Description Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-24 (work in progress), February 2005. [23] Bradner, S., Mankin, A., and J. Schiller, "A Framework for Purpose-Built Keys (PBK)", draft-bradner-pbk-frame-06 (work in progress), June 2003. [24] Jennings, C. and J. Peterson, "Certificate Management Service for The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-sipping-certs-01 (work in progress), February 2005. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 Authors' Addresses Hannes Tschofenig Siemens Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Munich, Bavaria 81739 Germany Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com Joerg Ott Universitaet Bremen Bibliothekstr. 1 Bremen 28359 Germany Email: jo@tzi.org Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science Building New York, NY 10027 USA Phone: +1 212 939 7042 Email: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs Thomas R. Henderson The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA USA Email: thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 Gonzalo Camarillo Ericsson Hirsalantie 11 Jorvas 02420 Finland Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Interaction between SIP and HIP July 2005 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 (2005). 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. Tschofenig, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 27]