Hi Paul,

> We are looking at Opportunistic IPsec and supporting key rollover
> support. In IKEv1, the initiator used the responder's key first,
> and the responder could figure out which of its multiple keys the
> initiator used. But in IKEv2, the responder uses one of their keys
> and it does not really know which ones the initiator knows about.
> 
> So we would like the initiator to indicate which key it is expecting
> the peer to use.
> 
> We could use the IDr payload in IKE_AUTH for that, using an ID_KEY_ID
> type. But we would also really like to use the IDr payload on the
> initiator to convey to the responder which FQDN we are expecting, so a
> responder could use a different key for each FQDN it is responsible for.

Doesn't ID_KEY_ID unambiguously determine the FQDN?
I presume that you may have several keys for each FQDN (for key rollover),
but each key is used for a single FQDN. If this is the case, then
sending FQDN along with ID_KEY_ID in IDr looks superfluous - 
you should be able to always map ID_KEY_ID to FQDN.

Moreover, while ID_KEY_ID is often an opaque data, an FQDN
reveals perceived responder identity to an active attacker,
so there are some privacy concerns...

> While the responder could map ID_KEY_ID to FQDN's, it would be nice if
> we could send both pieces of information from the initiator. I can see
> a few ways of doing this:
> 
> 1) Allow sending two IDr payloads in IKE_AUTH request
> 
> 2) Add a new NOTIFY type that takes an IDr payload, then send the real
>     IDr payload and the NOTIFY containing the second IDr payload.
> 
> 3) Add a new ID type that encodes both ID_FQDN and ID_KEY_ID, send 1 IDr
>     payload with that.
> 
> 4) No change, use IDr ID_KEY_ID and leave it the implementer's problem
> to figure out keyid -> FQDN.
> 
> I've ordered these according to my preference. I'd like to hear other
> people's view on this :)

My preference is quite the opposite :-)

Regards,
Valery.

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to