<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY % RFC0768 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.0768"  >
<!ENTITY % RFC0792 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.0792"  >
<!ENTITY % RFC1035 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.1035" >
<!ENTITY % RFC1885 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.1885" >
<!ENTITY % RFC2404 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2404" >
<!ENTITY % RFC2408 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2408" >
<!-- <!ENTITY % RFC2451 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2451" > -->
<!ENTITY % RFC4306 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4306" >
<!-- <!ENTITY % RFC2104 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2104" > -->
<!ENTITY % RFC2412 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2412" >
<!ENTITY % RFC2460 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2460" >
<!ENTITY % RFC2474 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2474" >
<!ENTITY % RFC2535 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2535" >
<!ENTITY % RFC2536 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2536" >
<!ENTITY % RFC3110 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3110" >
<!ENTITY % RFC3260 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3260" >
<!ENTITY % RFC3280 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3280" >
<!ENTITY % RFC3474 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3474" >
<!ENTITY % RFC3484 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3484" >
<!ENTITY % RFC3513 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3513" >
<!ENTITY % RFC3526 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3526" >
<!ENTITY % RFC3602 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3602" >
<!ENTITY % RFC4301 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4301" >
<!ENTITY % RFC4303 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4303" >
<!ENTITY % RFC4423 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4423" >

]>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY % RFC2119 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2119" >
]>

<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>

<rfc number="5202" category="exp">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="Using the ESP Transport Format with HIP">
      Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format
with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)</title>
    <author initials="P." surname="Jokela"
      fullname="Petri Jokela">
      <organization>Ericsson Research NomadicLab</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street />
          <city>JORVAS</city>
          <code>FIN-02420</code>
          <country>FINLAND</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+358 9 299 1</phone>
        <email>petri.jokela@nomadiclab.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="R." surname="Moskowitz" 
      fullname="Robert Moskowitz">
      <organization>
      ICSAlabs, An Independent Division of Verizon Business Systems
      </organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1000 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 200</street>
          <city>Mechanicsburg</city>
          <region>PA</region>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>rgm@icsalabs.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author initials="P." surname="Nikander" 
      fullname="Pekka Nikander">
      <organization>Ericsson Research NomadicLab</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street />
          <city>JORVAS</city>
          <code>FIN-02420</code>
          <country>FINLAND</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+358 9 299 1</phone>
        <email>pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date month="March" year="2008" />

    <area>Internet</area>

    <keyword>Request for Comments</keyword>
    <keyword>RFC</keyword>
    <keyword>Internet Draft</keyword>
    <keyword>I-D</keyword>

<note title="IESG Note">
<t>
The following issues describe IESG concerns about this document. The IESG
expects that these issues will be addressed when future versions of HIP
are designed.
</t>
<t>
In case of complex Security Policy Databases (SPDs) and the
co-existence of HIP and security-related
protocols such as IKE, implementors may encounter conditions that are
unspecified in these documents. For example, when the SPD defines an IP
address subnet to be protected and a HIP host is residing in that IP
address area, there is a possibility that the communication is encrypted
multiple times. Readers are advised to pay special attention when running
HIP with complex SPD settings. Future specifications should clearly define
when multiple encryption is intended, and when it should be avoided.
</t>
</note>
    <abstract>

      <t>
        This memo specifies an Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP)
        based mechanism for transmission of user data packets, to be
        used with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP).
      </t>

    </abstract>
<vspace blankLines="100"/>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">

      <t>
        In the Host Identity Protocol Architecture <xref
          target="RFC4423" />, hosts are identified with public
        keys.  The Host Identity Protocol <xref
          target="RFC5201"/> base exchange allows any two
        HIP-supporting hosts to authenticate each other and to create a
        HIP association between themselves.  During the base exchange,
        the hosts generate a piece of shared keying material using an
        authenticated Diffie-Hellman exchange.
      </t>
      
      <t>
        The HIP base exchange specification <xref
          target="RFC5201"/> does not describe any transport
        formats or methods for user data to be used during the actual
        communication; it only defines that it is mandatory to
        implement the <xref target="RFC4303">Encapsulated
        Security Payload (ESP)</xref> based transport
        format and method.  This document specifies how ESP
        is used with HIP to carry actual user data.
      </t>
      <t>
        To be more specific, this document specifies a set of HIP
        protocol extensions and their handling.  Using these extensions,
        a pair of ESP Security Associations (SAs) is created between the
        hosts during the base exchange.  The resulting ESP Security
        Associations use keys drawn from the keying material (KEYMAT)
        generated during the base exchange.  After the HIP association
        and required ESP SAs have been established between the hosts,
        the user data communication is protected using ESP.  In addition,
        this document specifies methods to update an existing ESP Security
        Association.
      </t>

      <t>
        It should be noted that representations of Host Identity are not
        carried explicitly in the headers of user data packets.
        Instead, the ESP Security Parameter Index (SPI) is used to
        indicate the right host context.  The SPIs are selected during
        the HIP ESP setup exchange.  For user data packets, ESP SPIs (in 
        possible combination with IP addresses) are used indirectly to
        identify the host context, thereby avoiding any additional
        explicit protocol headers.
      </t>

    </section>

    <section title="Conventions Used in This Document">

      <t>
        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 <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.
      </t>

    </section>
    <section title="Using ESP with HIP">
      <t>
        The HIP base exchange is used to set up a HIP association
        between two hosts.  The base exchange provides two-way host
        authentication and key material generation, but it does not
        provide any means for protecting data communication between
        the hosts.  In this document, we specify the use of ESP for
        protecting user data traffic after the HIP base exchange.
        Note that this use of ESP is intended only for host-to-host
        traffic; security gateways are not supported.
      </t>
      <t>
        To support ESP use, the HIP base exchange messages require
        some minor additions to the parameters transported.  In
        the R1 packet, the Responder adds the possible ESP transforms
        in a new ESP_TRANSFORM parameter before sending it to the
        Initiator.  The Initiator gets the proposed transforms,
        selects one of those proposed transforms, and adds it to the I2
        packet in an ESP_TRANSFORM parameter.  In this I2 packet, the
        Initiator also sends the SPI value that it wants to be used
        for ESP traffic flowing from the Responder to the Initiator.
        This information is carried using the new ESP_INFO parameter.
        When finalizing the ESP SA setup, the Responder sends its SPI
        value to the Initiator in the R2 packet, again using ESP_INFO.
        
      </t>    
      <section title="ESP Packet Format">
        <t>
          The <xref target="RFC4303">ESP specification</xref>
          defines the ESP packet format for IPsec.  The HIP ESP
          packet looks exactly the same as the IPsec ESP transport 
          format packet.  The semantics, however, are a bit different
          and are described in more detail in the next subsection. 
        </t>


      </section title="ESP packet format">

      <section anchor="sec.esp.packet"
        title="Conceptual ESP Packet Processing">

        <t>
          ESP packet processing can be implemented in different ways in
          HIP.  It is possible to implement it in a way that a
          standards compliant, unmodified IPsec implementation <xref
          target="RFC4303" /> can be used.
        </t>

        <t>
          When a standards compliant IPsec implementation that uses IP
          addresses in the SPD and Security Association Database (SAD)
          is used, the packet processing
          may take the following steps.  For outgoing packets,
          assuming that the upper-layer pseudoheader has been built
          using IP addresses, the implementation recalculates
          upper-layer checksums using Host Identity Tags (HITs) and, after that, changes the 
          packet source and destination addresses back to
          corresponding IP addresses.  The packet is sent to the IPsec
          ESP for transport mode handling and from there the encrypted
          packet is sent to the network.  When an ESP packet is
          received, the packet is first put to the IPsec ESP transport
          mode handling, and after decryption, the source and
          destination IP addresses are replaced with HITs and finally,
          upper-layer checksums are verified before passing the packet
          to the upper layer.
        </t>
        <t>
          An alternative way to implement packet processing is the
          BEET (Bound End-to-End Tunnel) <xref
          target="ESP-BEET" /> mode.  In BEET mode,
          the ESP packet is formatted as a transport mode packet, but
          the semantics of the connection are the same as for tunnel
          mode.  The "outer" addresses of the packet are the IP
          addresses and the "inner" addresses are the HITs.  For
          outgoing traffic, after the packet has been encrypted, the
          packet's IP header is changed to a new one that contains IP
          addresses instead of HITs, and the packet is sent to the
          network. When the ESP packet is received, the SPI value, together
          with the integrity protection, allow the packet to be securely
          associated with the right HIT pair.  The packet header is
          replaced with a new header containing HITs, and the packet is
          decrypted.  
        </t>

        <section anchor="spi" 
          title="Semantics of the Security Parameter Index (SPI)">
          
          <t>
            SPIs are used in ESP to find the right Security Association
            for received packets.  The ESP SPIs have added significance
            when used with HIP; they are a compressed representation of a
            pair of HITs.  Thus, SPIs MAY be used by intermediary systems
            in providing services like address mapping.  Note that since
            the SPI has significance at the receiver, only the <spanx
              style="tt">&lt; DST, SPI &gt;</spanx>, where DST is a
            destination IP address, uniquely identifies the receiver HIT
            at any given point of time.  The same SPI value may be used
            by several hosts.  A single 
<vspace blankLines="0" />
<spanx style="tt">&lt; DST, SPI
              &gt;</spanx> value may denote different hosts and contexts at
            different points of time, depending on the host that is
            currently reachable at the DST.
          </t>
        
          <t>
            Each host selects for itself the SPI it wants to see in
            packets received from its peer.  This allows it to select
            different SPIs for different peers.  The SPI selection
            SHOULD be random; the rules of Section 2.1 of the <xref
            target="RFC4303">ESP specification</xref>
            must be followed.  A different SPI SHOULD be used for each
            HIP exchange with a particular host; this is to avoid a
            replay attack.  Additionally, when a host rekeys, the SPI
            MUST be changed.  Furthermore, if a host changes over to
            use a different IP address, it MAY change the SPI.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            One method for SPI creation that meets the above criteria
            would be to concatenate the HIT with a 32-bit random or
            sequential number, hash this (using SHA1), and then use
            the high-order 32 bits as the SPI.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            The selected SPI is communicated to the peer in the third
            (I2) and fourth (R2) packets of the base HIP exchange.
            Changes in SPI are signaled with ESP_INFO parameters.
          </t>
          
        </section>
        
      </section title="ESP packet processing">

      <section title="Security Association Establishment and Maintenance">

        <section title="ESP Security Associations">

          <t>
            In HIP, ESP Security Associations are setup between the HIP
            nodes during the base exchange <xref
            target="RFC5201" />.  Existing ESP SAs can be
            updated later using UPDATE messages.  The reason for
            updating the ESP SA later can be, for example, a need for rekeying
            the SA because of sequence number rollover. 
          </t>

          <t>
            Upon setting up a HIP association, each association is
            linked to two ESP SAs, one for incoming packets and one
            for outgoing packets.  The Initiator's incoming SA
            corresponds with the Responder's outgoing one, and vice
            versa.  The Initiator defines the SPI for its incoming
            association, as defined in <xref target="spi" />.  This SA
            is herein called SA-RI, and the corresponding SPI is
            called SPI-RI.  Respectively, the Responder's incoming SA
            corresponds with the Initiator's outgoing SA and is called
            SA-IR, with the SPI being called SPI-IR.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            The Initiator creates SA-RI as a part of R1 processing, before
            sending out the I2, as explained in <xref target="inr1"
              />.  The keys are derived from KEYMAT, as defined in <xref
              target="key" />.  The Responder creates SA-RI as a part of
            I2 processing; see <xref target="ini2" />.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            The Responder creates SA-IR as a part of I2 processing, before
            sending out R2; see <xref target="ini2" />.  The Initiator
            creates SA-IR when processing R2; see <xref target="inr2" />.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            The initial session keys are drawn from the generated keying
            material, KEYMAT, after the HIP keys have been drawn as
            specified in <xref target="RFC5201" />.
          </t>
          <t>
            When the HIP association is removed, the related ESP
            SAs MUST also be removed.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="esp_rekeying" title="Rekeying">
          
          <t>
            After the initial HIP base exchange and SA establishment, both
            hosts are in the ESTABLISHED state.  There are no longer Initiator
            and Responder roles and the association is symmetric.  In this
            subsection, the party that initiates the rekey procedure is
            denoted with I' and the peer with R'.
          </t>
          <t>
            An existing HIP-created ESP SA may need updating during the
            lifetime of the HIP association.  This document specifies
            the rekeying of an existing HIP-created ESP SA, using the
            UPDATE message.  The ESP_INFO parameter introduced above is
            used for this purpose.
          </t>

          <t>
            I' initiates the ESP SA updating process when needed (see
            <xref target="association_update" />).  It creates an UPDATE
            packet with required information and sends it to the peer
            node.  The old SAs are still in use, local policy
            permitting.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            R', after receiving and processing the UPDATE (see <xref
            target="processing_her1" />), generates new SAs: SA-I'R' and
            SA-R'I'.  It does not take the new outgoing SA into use, but
            still uses the old one, so there temporarily exists two SA
            pairs towards the same peer host.  The SPI for the new
            outgoing SA, SPI-R'I', is specified in the received ESP_INFO
            parameter in the UPDATE packet.  For the new incoming SA, R'
            generates the new SPI value, SPI-I'R', and includes it in
            the response UPDATE packet.  
          </t>

          
          <t>
            When I' receives a response UPDATE from R', it
            generates new SAs, as described in <xref
              target="processing_her1" />: SA-I'R' and SA-R'I'.  It starts
            using the new outgoing SA immediately.
          </t>
          <t>
            R' starts using the new outgoing SA when it receives
            traffic on the new incoming SA or when it receives the
            UPDATE ACK confirming completion of rekeying.  After this,
            R' can remove the old SAs.  Similarly, when the I'
            receives traffic from the new incoming SA, it can safely
            remove the old SAs.
          </t>
          
        </section>
        
        <section title="Security Association Management">
          
          <t>
            An SA pair is indexed by the 2 SPIs and 2 HITs (both local and
            remote HITs since a system can have more than one HIT).  An
            inactivity timer is RECOMMENDED for all SAs.  If the state
            dictates the deletion of an SA, a timer is set to allow for
            any late arriving packets.
          </t>
          
        </section>
        
        <section title="Security Parameter Index (SPI)">
          
          <t>
            The SPIs in ESP provide a simple compression of the HIP data
            from all packets after the HIP exchange.  This does require a
            per HIT-pair Security Association (and SPI), and a decrease
            of policy granularity over other Key Management Protocols like
            IKE.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            When a host updates the ESP SA, it provides a new inbound
            SPI to and gets a new outbound SPI from its partner.
          </t>
          
        </section>
        
        <section title="Supported Transforms">
          
          <t>
            All HIP implementations MUST support AES-CBC <xref
              target="RFC3602" /> and HMAC-SHA-1-96 <xref target="RFC2404"
              />.  If the Initiator does not support any of the transforms
            offered by the Responder, it should abandon the negotiation
            and inform the peer with a NOTIFY message about a non-supported
            transform. 
          </t>

          <t>
            In addition to AES-CBC, all implementations MUST implement the
            ESP NULL encryption algorithm.  When the ESP NULL encryption
            is used, it MUST be used together with SHA1 or MD5
            authentication as specified in <xref target="esptransform"
            />
          </t>
      
        </section>
        
        <section anchor="sec-seq-num" title="Sequence Number">

          <t>
            The Sequence Number field is MANDATORY when ESP is used with
            HIP.  Anti-replay protection MUST be used in an ESP SA
            established with HIP.  When ESP is used with HIP, a 64-bit
            sequence number MUST be used.  This means that each host
            MUST rekey before its sequence number reaches 2^64.
          </t>
          <t>
            When using a 64-bit sequence number, the higher 32 bits are
            NOT included in the ESP header, but are simply kept local to 
            both peers.  See <xref target="RFC4301" />.
          </t>

        </section>
        <section title="Lifetimes and Timers">
          <t>
            HIP does not negotiate any lifetimes.  All ESP lifetimes are
            local policy.  The only lifetimes a HIP implementation MUST
            support are sequence number rollover (for replay
            protection), and SHOULD support timing out inactive ESP SAs.
            An SA times out if no packets are received using that SA.
            The default timeout value is 15 minutes.  Implementations
            MAY support lifetimes for the various ESP transforms.  Each
            implementation SHOULD implement per-HIT configuration of the
            inactivity timeout, allowing statically configured HIP
            associations to stay alive for days, even when inactive.
          </t>

        </section>

      </section title="Security Association Establishment and Maintenance">

      <section title="IPsec and HIP ESP Implementation Considerations">
        <t>
          When HIP is run on a node where a standards compliant IPsec is
          used, some issues have to be considered.
        </t>
        <t>
          The HIP implementation must be able to co-exist with other
          IPsec keying protocols.  When the HIP implementation selects
          the SPI value, it may lead to a collision if not implemented
          properly.  To avoid the possibility for a collision, the HIP
          implementation MUST ensure that the SPI values used for HIP 
          SAs are not used for IPsec or other SAs, and vice versa.
        </t>
        <t>
          For outbound traffic, the SPD or (coordinated) SPDs if there
          are two (one for HIP and one for IPsec) MUST ensure that
          packets intended for HIP processing are given a HIP-enabled SA
          and that packets intended for IPsec processing are given an
          IPsec-enabled SA.  The SP then MUST be bound to the matching
          SA and non-HIP packets will not be processed by this SA.  Data
          originating from a socket that is not using HIP MUST NOT have
          checksum recalculated (as described in Section 3.2, paragraph 2)
          and data MUST NOT be passed to the SP or SA created by the
          HIP.
        </t>
        <t>
          Incoming data packets using an SA that is not negotiated by
          HIP MUST NOT be processed as described in Section 3.2,
          paragraph 2.  The SPI will identify the correct SA for packet
          decryption and MUST be used to identify that the packet has an
          upper-layer checksum that is calculated as specified in <xref
          target="RFC5201" />.
        </t>

      </section title="IPsec and HIP ESP Implementation Considerations">

    </section>
    

    <section anchor="proto" title="The Protocol">
      <t>
        In this section, the protocol for setting up an ESP association
        to be used with HIP association is described.
      </t>

      <section title="ESP in HIP">
        <section title="Setting Up an ESP Security Association">

          <t>
            Setting up an ESP Security Association between hosts using
            HIP consists of three messages passed between the hosts.
            The parameters are included in R1, I2, and R2 messages
            during base exchange.
          </t>

          <figure>
            <artwork>
              
              Initiator                             Responder

                                I1
                ----------------------------------&gt;

                          R1: ESP_TRANSFORM 
                &lt;----------------------------------

                    I2: ESP_TRANSFORM, ESP_INFO
                ----------------------------------&gt;

                            R2: ESP_INFO 
                &lt;----------------------------------

            </artwork>      
          </figure>


          <t>
            Setting up an ESP Security Association between HIP hosts
            requires three messages to exchange the information that is
            required during an ESP communication.
          </t>
          <t>
            The R1 message contains the ESP_TRANSFORM parameter, in
            which the sending host defines the possible ESP transforms
            it is willing to use for the ESP SA.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            The I2 message contains the response to an ESP_TRANSFORM
            received in the R1 message.  The sender must select one of
            the proposed ESP transforms from the ESP_TRANSFORM parameter
            in the R1 message and include the selected one in the
            ESP_TRANSFORM parameter in the I2 packet.  In addition to
            the transform, the host includes the ESP_INFO parameter
            containing the SPI value to be used by the peer host.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            In the R2 message, the ESP SA setup is finalized.  The
            packet contains the SPI information required by the
            Initiator for the ESP SA.
          </t>


        </section>
        <section title="Updating an Existing ESP SA">
          <t>
            The update process is accomplished using two messages. The
            HIP UPDATE message is used to update the parameters of an
            existing ESP SA.  The UPDATE mechanism and message is
            defined in <xref target="RFC5201" />, and the
            additional parameters for updating an existing ESP SA are
            described here.
          </t>
          <t>
            The following picture shows a typical exchange when an
            existing ESP SA is updated.  Messages include SEQ and ACK
            parameters required by the UPDATE mechanism.
          </t>
          <figure>
            <artwork>
              
    H1                                                          H2
         UPDATE: SEQ, ESP_INFO [, DIFFIE_HELLMAN]
       -----------------------------------------------------&gt;

         UPDATE: SEQ, ACK, ESP_INFO [, DIFFIE_HELLMAN]
       &lt;-----------------------------------------------------

         UPDATE: ACK
       -----------------------------------------------------&gt;
            </artwork>      
          </figure>

          
          <t>
            The host willing to update the ESP SA creates and sends an
            UPDATE message.  The message contains the ESP_INFO parameter
            containing the old SPI value that was used, the new SPI
            value to be used, and the index value for the keying
            material, giving the point from where the next keys will be
            drawn.  If new keying material must be generated, the UPDATE
            message will also contain the DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter
            defined in <xref target="RFC5201" />.
          </t>

          <t>
            The host receiving the UPDATE message requesting update of
            an existing ESP SA MUST reply with an UPDATE message.  In
            the reply message, the host sends the ESP_INFO parameter
            containing the corresponding values: old SPI, new SPI, and
            the keying material index.  If the incoming UPDATE contained
            a DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter, the reply packet MUST also
            contain a DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter.
          </t>
          
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="packets" title="Parameter and Packet Formats">
      <t>
        In this section, new and modified HIP parameters are presented,
        as well as modified HIP packets. 
      </t>
      
      <section title="New Parameters">
        <t>
          Two new HIP parameters are defined for setting up ESP
          transport format associations in HIP communication and for
          rekeying existing ones.  Also, the NOTIFY parameter, described
          in <xref target="RFC5201" />, has two new error
          parameters.
        </t>

        <figure>
          <artwork>
   Parameter         Type  Length     Data

   ESP_INFO          65    12         Remote's old SPI, 
                                      new SPI, and other info
   ESP_TRANSFORM     4095  variable   ESP Encryption and
                                      Authentication Transform(s)
          </artwork>
        </figure>
        <section anchor="espinfo" title="ESP_INFO">
          <t>
            During the establishment and update of an ESP SA, the SPI
            value of both hosts must be transmitted between the hosts.
<!-- [rfced] author submitted new text in response to AQ. -->
   During the establishment and update of an ESP SA, the SPI value of
   both hosts must be transmitted between the hosts.  In addition,
   hosts need the index value to the KEYMAT when they are drawing keys
   from the generated keying material.  The ESP_INFO parameter is used
   to transmit the SPI values and the KEYMAT index information between
   the hosts.
          </t>
            
          <t>
            During the initial ESP SA setup, the hosts send the SPI
            value that they want the peer to use when sending ESP data
            to them.  The value is set in the NEW SPI field of the
            ESP_INFO parameter.  In the initial setup, an old value
            for the SPI does not exist, thus the OLD SPI value
            field is set to zero.  The OLD SPI field value may also be
            zero when additional SAs are set up between HIP hosts,
            e.g., in case of multihomed HIP hosts <xref
            target="RFC5206" />.  However, such use is beyond
            the scope of this specification.
          </t>

          <t>
            <xref target="RFC4301">RFC 4301</xref> describes how to
            establish multiple SAs to properly support QoS.  If
            different classes of traffic (distinguished by
            Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) bits <xref
            target="RFC3474" />, <xref target="RFC3260" />) are sent on
            the same SA, and if the receiver is employing the optional
            anti-replay feature available in ESP, this could result in
            inappropriate discarding of lower priority packets due to
            the windowing mechanism used by this feature.  Therefore, a
            sender SHOULD put traffic of different classes but with the
            same selector values on different SAs to support Quality of
            Service (QoS) appropriately.  To permit this, the
            implementation MUST permit establishment and maintenance of
            multiple SAs between a given sender and receiver with the
            same selectors.  Distribution of traffic among these
            parallel SAs to support QoS is locally determined by the
            sender and is not negotiated by HIP.  The receiver MUST
            process the packets from the different SAs without
            prejudice.  It is possible that the DSCP value changes en
            route, but this should not cause problems with respect to
            IPsec processing since the value is not employed for SA
            selection and MUST NOT be checked as part of SA/packet
            validation.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            The KEYMAT index value points to the place in the KEYMAT from
            where the keying material for the ESP SAs is drawn.  The
            KEYMAT index value is zero only when the ESP_INFO is sent
            during a rekeying process and new keying material is 
            generated.
          </t>
          
          <t>
            During the life of an SA established by HIP, one of the
            hosts may need to reset the Sequence Number to one 
            and rekey.  The reason for rekeying might
            be an approaching sequence number wrap in ESP, or a local
            policy on use of a key.  Rekeying ends the current SAs and
            starts new ones on both peers.
          </t>
          <t>
            During the rekeying process, the ESP_INFO parameter is used to
            transmit the changed SPI values and the keying
            material index.  
          </t>
          
          <figure>
            <artwork>
                

    0                   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Type              |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Reserved            |         KEYMAT Index          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            OLD SPI                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            NEW SPI                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type           65
   Length         12
   KEYMAT Index   Index, in bytes, where to continue to draw ESP keys
                  from KEYMAT.  If the packet includes a new
                  Diffie-Hellman key and the ESP_INFO is sent in an
                  UPDATE packet, the field MUST be zero.  If the 
                  ESP_INFO is included in base exchange messages, the
                  KEYMAT Index must have the index value of the point 
                  from where the ESP SA keys are drawn.  Note that the 
                  length of this field limits the amount of
                  keying material that can be drawn from KEYMAT.  If
                  that amount is exceeded, the packet MUST contain
                  a new Diffie-Hellman key. 
   OLD SPI        old SPI for data sent to address(es) associated
                  with this SA. If this is an initial SA setup, the
                  OLD SPI value is zero.
   NEW SPI        new SPI for data sent to address(es) associated
                  with this SA.
            </artwork>
          </figure>

        </section>
        <section anchor="esptransform" title="ESP_TRANSFORM">
          <t>
            The ESP_TRANSFORM parameter is used during ESP SA
            establishment.  The first party sends a selection of
            transform families in the ESP_TRANSFORM parameter, and the
            peer must select one of the proposed values and include it
            in the response ESP_TRANSFORM parameter.
          </t>
            
          <figure>
            <artwork>
    0                   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Type              |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Reserved             |           Suite ID #1         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Suite ID #2          |           Suite ID #3         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Suite ID #n          |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           4095
      Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and 
                     padding
      Reserved       zero when sent, ignored when received
      Suite ID       defines the ESP Suite to be used
            </artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>
            The following Suite IDs are defined in <xref
              target="RFC5201">RFC 5201</xref>:
          </t>
          <figure>
            <artwork>
         Suite ID                          Value

         RESERVED                          0
         AES-CBC with HMAC-SHA1            1
         3DES-CBC with HMAC-SHA1           2
         3DES-CBC with HMAC-MD5            3
         BLOWFISH-CBC with HMAC-SHA1       4
         NULL with HMAC-SHA1               5
         NULL with HMAC-MD5                6
            </artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>
            The sender of an ESP transform parameter MUST make sure that
            there are no more than six (6) Suite IDs in one ESP
            transform parameter.  Conversely, a recipient MUST be
            prepared to handle received transport parameters that
            contain more than six Suite IDs.  The limited number of
            Suite IDs sets the maximum size of the ESP_TRANSFORM parameter.
            As the default configuration, the ESP_TRANSFORM parameter
            MUST contain at least one of the mandatory Suite IDs.  There
            MAY be a configuration option that allows the administrator
            to override this default.
          </t>
          <t>
            Mandatory implementations: AES-CBC with HMAC-SHA1 and
            NULL with HMAC-SHA1.
          </t>

          <t>
            Under some conditions, it is possible to use Traffic Flow
            Confidentiality (TFC) <xref target="RFC4303" /> with ESP in
            BEET mode. However, the definition of such operation is
            future work and must be done in a separate specification.
          </t>
        </section>


        <section anchor="notify_pars" title="NOTIFY Parameter">
          <t>
            The HIP base specification defines a set of NOTIFY
            error types.  The following error types are required for
            describing errors in ESP Transform crypto suites during
            negotiation.
          </t>
          <figure>
            <artwork>
      NOTIFY PARAMETER - ERROR TYPES           Value
      ------------------------------           -----

      NO_ESP_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN                    18

         None of the proposed ESP Transform crypto suites was
         acceptable.

      INVALID_ESP_TRANSFORM_CHOSEN              19

         The ESP Transform crypto suite does not correspond to
         one offered by the Responder.
            
            </artwork>
          </figure>
        </section>
      </section>
      
      <section title="HIP ESP Security Association Setup">

        <t>
          The ESP Security Association is set up during the base
          exchange.  The following subsections define the ESP SA setup
          procedure using both base exchange messages (R1, I2, R2) and
          UPDATE messages.
        </t>

        <section title="Setup During Base Exchange">
          <section anchor="modr1" title="Modifications in R1">
            
            <t>
              The ESP_TRANSFORM contains the ESP modes supported by the
              sender, in the order of preference.  All implementations
              MUST support AES-CBC <xref target="RFC3602" /> with
              HMAC-SHA-1-96 <xref target="RFC2404" />.
            </t>
            
            <t>
              The following figure shows the resulting R1 packet layout.
            </t>
            <figure>
              <artwork>
   The HIP parameters for the R1 packet:

   IP ( HIP ( [ R1_COUNTER, ]
              PUZZLE,
              DIFFIE_HELLMAN,
              HIP_TRANSFORM,
              ESP_TRANSFORM,
              HOST_ID,
              [ ECHO_REQUEST, ]
              HIP_SIGNATURE_2 )
              [, ECHO_REQUEST ])
              </artwork>
            </figure>
            
          </section title="Modifications in R1"> 

          <section anchor="modi2" title="Modifications in I2">
            <t>
              The ESP_INFO contains the sender's SPI for this association
              as well as the KEYMAT index from where the ESP SA keys will
              be drawn.  The old SPI value is set to zero.
            </t>
            <t>
              The ESP_TRANSFORM contains the ESP mode selected by the
              sender of R1.  All implementations MUST support AES-CBC
              <xref target="RFC3602" /> with HMAC-SHA-1-96 <xref
              target="RFC2404" />.
            </t>
            <t>
              The following figure shows the resulting I2 packet layout.
            </t>
            
            <figure>
              <artwork>
   The HIP parameters for the I2 packet:

   IP ( HIP ( ESP_INFO,
              [R1_COUNTER,]
              SOLUTION,
              DIFFIE_HELLMAN,
              HIP_TRANSFORM,
              ESP_TRANSFORM,
              ENCRYPTED { HOST_ID },
              [ ECHO_RESPONSE ,]
              HMAC,
              HIP_SIGNATURE
              [, ECHO_RESPONSE] ) )
              </artwork>
            </figure>
            
          </section title="Modifications in I2">

          <section anchor="modr2" title="Modifications in R2">
            
            <t>
              The R2 contains an ESP_INFO parameter, which
              has the SPI value of the sender of the R2 for this
              association.  The ESP_INFO also has the KEYMAT index
              value specifying where the ESP SA keys are drawn.
            </t>
            
            <t>
              The following figure shows the resulting R2 packet layout.
            </t>
            
            <figure>
              <artwork>
   The HIP parameters for the R2 packet:

   IP ( HIP ( ESP_INFO, HMAC_2, HIP_SIGNATURE ) )
              </artwork>
            </figure>


          </section title="Modifications in R2">
          
        </section title="Setup during base exchange">
      </section title="setup">
      <section anchor="hip_her" title="HIP ESP Rekeying">
        <t>
          In this section, the procedure for rekeying an existing ESP SA
          is presented. 
        </t>
        <t>
          Conceptually, the process can be represented by the
          following message sequence using the host names I' and R'
          defined in <xref target="esp_rekeying" />.  For simplicity,
          HMAC and HIP_SIGNATURE are not depicted, and DIFFIE_HELLMAN
          keys are optional.  The UPDATE with ACK_I need not be
          piggybacked with the UPDATE with SEQ_R; it may be ACKed
          separately (in which case the sequence would include four
          packets).
        </t>

        <figure>
          <artwork>
        I'                                  R'
 
              UPDATE(ESP_INFO, SEQ_I, [DIFFIE_HELLMAN])
         -----------------------------------&gt;
              UPDATE(ESP_INFO, SEQ_R, ACK_I, [DIFFIE_HELLMAN])
         &lt;-----------------------------------
              UPDATE(ACK_R)
         -----------------------------------&gt;
          </artwork>
        </figure>

          <t>
            Below, the first two packets in this figure are explained.
          </t>
        <section title="Initializing Rekeying">
          <t>
            When HIP is used with ESP, the UPDATE packet is used to
            initiate rekeying.  The UPDATE packet MUST carry an ESP_INFO
            and MAY carry a DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter.
          </t>
          <t>
            Intermediate systems that use the SPI will have to inspect
            HIP packets for those that carry rekeying information.  The
            packet is signed for the benefit of the intermediate
            systems.  Since intermediate systems may need the new SPI
            values, the contents cannot be encrypted.
          </t>
          <t>
            The following figure shows the contents of a rekeying
            initialization UPDATE packet.
          </t>
          <figure>
            <artwork>
   The HIP parameters for the UPDATE packet initiating rekeying: 

   IP ( HIP ( ESP_INFO,
              SEQ, 
              [DIFFIE_HELLMAN, ] 
              HMAC, 
              HIP_SIGNATURE ) )
            </artwork>
          </figure>


        </section>
        <section title="Responding to the Rekeying Initialization">
          <t>
            The UPDATE ACK is used to acknowledge the received UPDATE
            rekeying initialization.  The acknowledgment UPDATE packet
            MUST carry an ESP_INFO and MAY carry a DIFFIE_HELLMAN
            parameter.
          </t>
          <t>
            Intermediate systems that use the SPI will have to inspect
            HIP packets for packets carrying rekeying information.  The
            packet is signed for the benefit of the intermediate
            systems.  Since intermediate systems may need the new SPI
            values, the contents cannot be encrypted.
          </t>
          <t>
            The following figure shows the contents of a rekeying
            acknowledgment UPDATE packet.
          </t>
        </section>
          <figure>
            <artwork>
   The HIP parameters for the UPDATE packet:

   IP ( HIP ( ESP_INFO, 
              SEQ,
              ACK, 
              [ DIFFIE_HELLMAN, ] 
              HMAC, 
              HIP_SIGNATURE ) )
            </artwork>
          </figure>

      </section>

      <section anchor="ICMP" title="ICMP Messages">
        <t>
          ICMP message handling is mainly described in the HIP base
          specification <xref target="RFC5201" />.  In this
          section, we describe the actions related to ESP security
          associations.
        </t>
        <section title="Unknown SPI">
          <t>
            If a HIP implementation receives an ESP packet that has an
            unrecognized SPI number, it MAY respond (subject to rate
            limiting the responses) with an ICMP packet with type
            "Parameter Problem", with the pointer pointing to the the
            beginning of SPI field in the ESP header.
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    
    
    <section anchor="handling" title="Packet Processing">
      <t>
        Packet processing is mainly defined in the HIP base
        specification <xref target="RFC5201" />.  This section
        describes the changes and new requirements for packet handling
        when the ESP transport format is used.  Note that all HIP
        packets (currently protocol 253) MUST bypass ESP processing.
      </t>


      <section title="Processing Outgoing Application Data">
        <t>
          Outgoing application data handling is specified in the HIP
          base specification <xref target="RFC5201" />.  When
          the ESP transport format is used, and there is an active HIP
          session for the given < source, destination > HIT pair, the
          outgoing datagram is protected using the ESP security
          association.  In a typical implementation, this will result in
          a BEET-mode ESP packet being sent.  BEET-mode <xref
            target="ESP-BEET" /> was introduced above
          in <xref target="sec.esp.packet" />.  The following
          additional steps define the conceptual processing rules
         for outgoing ESP protected datagrams.
            
          <list style="numbers">
            <t>
              Detect the proper ESP SA using the HITs in the packet
              header or other information associated with the packet
            </t>
            <t>
              Process the packet normally, as if the SA was a
              transport mode SA.
            </t>
            <t>
              Ensure that the outgoing ESP protected packet has proper
              IP header format depending on the used IP address family,
              and proper IP addresses in its IP header, e.g., by
              replacing HITs left by the ESP processing.  Note that this
              placement of proper IP addresses MAY also be performed at
              some other point in the stack, e.g., before ESP
              processing.
            </t>
          </list> 
        </t>
      </section>

      <section title="Processing Incoming Application Data">
        <t>
          Incoming HIP user data packets arrive as ESP protected
          packets.  In the usual case, the receiving host has a
          corresponding ESP security association, identified by the SPI
          and destination IP address in the packet.  However, if the
          host has crashed or otherwise lost its HIP state, it may not
          have such an SA.
        </t>

        <t>
          The basic incoming data handling is specified in the HIP base
          specification.  Additional steps are required when ESP is used
          for protecting the data traffic.  The following steps define
          the conceptual processing rules for incoming ESP
          protected datagrams targeted to an ESP security association
          created with HIP.
          
          <list style="numbers">
            <t>
              Detect the proper ESP SA using the SPI. If the
              resulting SA is a non-HIP ESP SA, process the packet
              according to standard IPsec rules.  If there are no SAs
              identified with the SPI, the host MAY send an ICMP packet
              as defined in <xref target="ICMP" />.  How to handle lost
              state is an implementation issue.
            </t>
            <t>
              If the SPI matches with an active HIP-based ESP SA, 
              the IP addresses in the datagram are replaced with the
              HITs associated with the SPI.  Note that this
              IP-address-to-HIT conversion step MAY also be performed at
              some other point in the stack, e.g., after ESP
              processing. Note also that if the incoming packet has
              IPv4 addresses, the packet must be converted to IPv6
              format before replacing the addresses with HITs (such
              that the transport checksum will pass if there are no errors).
            </t>
            <t>
              The transformed packet is next processed
              normally by ESP, as if the packet were a transport mode
              packet.  The packet may be dropped by ESP, as usual.  In a
              typical implementation, the result of successful ESP
              decryption and verification is a datagram with the
              associated HITs as source and destination. 
            </t>
            <t>
              The datagram is delivered to the upper
              layer. Demultiplexing the datagram to the right upper
              layer socket is performed as usual, except that the HITs
              are used in place of IP addresses during the demultiplexing.
            </t>
          </list>
        </t>
      </section>
      
      <section title="HMAC and SIGNATURE Calculation and Verification">
        <t>
          The new HIP parameters described in this document, ESP_INFO
          and ESP_TRANSFORM, must be protected using HMAC and signature
          calculations.  In a typical implementation, they are included
          in R1, I2, R2, and UPDATE packet HMAC and SIGNATURE calculations
          as described in <xref target="RFC5201" />.
        </t>
      </section>
      
      <section anchor="inr1" 
        title="Processing Incoming ESP SA Initialization (R1)">
        <t>
          The ESP SA setup is initialized in the R1 message.  The
          receiving host (Initiator) selects one of the ESP transforms from the
          presented values.  If no suitable value is found, the
          negotiation is terminated.  The selected values are
          subsequently used when generating and using encryption keys,
          and when sending the reply packet.  If the proposed
          alternatives are not acceptable to the system, it may abandon
          the ESP SA establishment negotiation, or it
          may resend the I1 message within the retry bounds.
        </t>

        <t>
          After selecting the ESP transform and performing other R1
          processing, the system prepares and creates
          an incoming ESP security association.  It may also prepare
          a security association for outgoing traffic, but since it does
          not have the correct SPI value yet, it cannot activate it. 
        </t>

        
      </section>
      
      <section anchor="ini2"
        title="Processing Incoming Initialization Reply (I2)">
        
        <t>
          The following steps are required to process the incoming ESP SA
          initialization replies in I2.  The steps below assume that
          the I2 has been accepted for processing (e.g., has not been 
          dropped due to HIT comparisons as described in 
          <xref target="RFC5201"/>).

          <list style="symbols">
            
            <t>
              The ESP_TRANSFORM parameter is verified and it MUST
              contain a single value in the parameter, and it MUST
              match one of the values offered in the initialization packet.
            </t>
            <t>
              The ESP_INFO NEW SPI field is parsed to obtain the SPI
              that will be used for the Security Association outbound
              from the Responder and inbound to the Initiator.  For
              this initial ESP SA establishment, the old SPI value
              MUST be zero.  The KEYMAT Index field MUST contain
              the index value to the KEYMAT from where the ESP SA
              keys are drawn.
            </t>
            <t>
              The system prepares and creates both incoming and outgoing
              ESP security associations.
            </t>
            <t>
              Upon successful processing of the initialization reply
              message, the possible old Security Associations (as left
              over from an earlier incarnation of the HIP association)
              are dropped and the new ones are installed, and a
              finalizing packet, R2, is sent.  Possible ongoing rekeying
              attempts are dropped.
            </t>

          </list>
        </t>
        
      </section>
      
      <section anchor="inr2" title="Processing Incoming ESP SA Setup Finalization (R2)">
        <t>
          Before the ESP SA can be finalized, the ESP_INFO NEW SPI field
          is parsed to obtain the SPI that will be used for the ESP
          Security Association inbound to the sender of the finalization
          message R2.  The system uses this SPI to create or activate the
          outgoing ESP security association used for sending packets to
          the peer.
        </t>
      </section>
      
      <section title="Dropping HIP Associations">
        <t> 
          When the system drops a HIP association, as described in the HIP
          base specification, the associated ESP SAs MUST also be dropped.
        </t>
      </section>
      
      <section anchor="association_update" title="Initiating ESP SA Rekeying">

        <t>
          During ESP SA rekeying, the hosts draw new keys from the 
          existing keying material, or new keying material is generated
          from where the new keys are drawn. 
        </t>
        
        <t>
          A system may initiate the SA rekeying procedure at any time.  It
          MUST initiate a rekey if its incoming ESP sequence counter is
          about to overflow.  The system MUST NOT replace its keying
          material until the rekeying packet exchange successfully
          completes.
        </t>
        <t>
          Optionally, a system may include a new Diffie-Hellman key for
          use in new KEYMAT generation.  New KEYMAT generation occurs
          prior to drawing the new keys.
        </t>


        <t>
          The rekeying procedure uses the UPDATE mechanism defined
          in <xref target="RFC5201"/>.  Because each peer
          must update its half of the security association pair (including
          new SPI creation), the rekeying process requires that each
          side both send and receive an UPDATE.  
          A system will then rekey the ESP SA when it has sent parameters to
          the peer and has received both an ACK of the relevant UPDATE
          message and corresponding peer's parameters.  It may be that
          the ACK and the required HIP parameters arrive in different
          UPDATE messages.  This is always true if a system does not
          initiate ESP SA update but responds to an update request from
          the peer, and may also occur if two systems initiate update
          nearly simultaneously.  In such a case, if the system has an
          outstanding update request, it saves the one parameter and
          waits for the other before completing rekeying.
        </t>


        <t>
          The following steps define the processing rules for
          initiating an ESP SA update:
          
          <list style="numbers">
            
            <t>
              The system decides whether to continue to use the existing
              KEYMAT or to generate a new KEYMAT.  In the latter case, the
              system MUST generate a new Diffie-Hellman public key.
            </t>
            <t>
              The system creates an UPDATE packet, which contains the
              ESP_INFO parameter.  In addition, the host may include the
              optional DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter.  If the UPDATE contains
              the DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter, the KEYMAT Index in the
              ESP_INFO parameter MUST be zero, and the Diffie-Hellman
              group ID must be unchanged from that used in the initial
              handshake.  If the UPDATE does not
              contain DIFFIE_HELLMAN, the ESP_INFO KEYMAT Index MUST be
              greater than or equal to the index of the next byte to be drawn
              from the current KEYMAT.
            </t>

            <t>
              The system sends the UPDATE packet. For reliability, the
              underlying UPDATE retransmission mechanism MUST be used.
            </t>

            <t>
              The system MUST NOT delete its existing SAs, but continue
              using them if its policy still allows.  The rekeying
              procedure SHOULD be initiated early enough to make sure
              that the SA replay counters do not overflow.
            </t>

            <t>
              In case a protocol error occurs and the peer system
              acknowledges the UPDATE but does not itself send an
              ESP_INFO, the system may not finalize the outstanding ESP
              SA update request.  To guard against this, a system MAY
              re-initiate the ESP SA update procedure after some time
              waiting for the peer to respond, or it MAY decide to abort
              the ESP SA after waiting for an implementation-dependent
              time.  The system MUST NOT keep an outstanding ESP SA
              update request for an indefinite time.
            </t>

          </list>
        </t>

        <t>
          To simplify the state machine, a host MUST NOT generate new
          UPDATEs while it has an outstanding ESP SA update request,
          unless it is restarting the update process.
        </t>
      
      </section>

      <section anchor="processing_her1"
        title="Processing Incoming UPDATE Packets">
        
        <t>
          When a system receives an UPDATE packet, it must be
          processed if the following conditions hold (in addition to
          the generic conditions specified for UPDATE processing in
          Section 6.12 of <xref target="RFC5201" />):
          <list style="numbers">
            <t>
              A corresponding HIP association must exist.  This is
              usually ensured by the underlying UPDATE mechanism.
            </t>
            <t>
              The state of the HIP association is ESTABLISHED or R2-SENT.
            </t>
          </list>
        </t>
        <t>
          If the above conditions hold, the following steps define
          the conceptual processing rules for handling the received
          UPDATE packet:
          <list style="numbers">
            <t>
              If the received UPDATE contains a DIFFIE_HELLMAN
              parameter, the received KEYMAT Index MUST be zero and the
              Group ID must match the Group ID in use on the
              association.  If this test fails, the packet SHOULD be
              dropped and the system SHOULD log an error message.
            </t>
 
            <t>
              If there is no outstanding rekeying request, the packet
              processing continues as specified in <xref
              target="NES-first" />.
            </t>
            <t>
              If there is an outstanding rekeying request, the UPDATE
              MUST be acknowledged, the received ESP_INFO (and possibly
              DIFFIE_HELLMAN) parameters must be saved, and the packet
              processing continues as specified in <xref
              target="leave-rekey" />.
            </t>
          </list>
        </t>
        <section anchor="NES-first" title="Processing UPDATE Packet: No
          Outstanding Rekeying Request">
          <t>
            The following steps define the conceptual processing rules
            for handling a received UPDATE packet with the ESP_INFO
            parameter:
            <list style="numbers">

              <t>
                The system consults its policy to see if it needs to
                generate a new Diffie-Hellman key, and generates a new
                key (with same Group ID) if needed.  The system records 
                any newly generated
                or received Diffie-Hellman keys for use in KEYMAT
                generation upon finalizing the ESP SA update.
              </t>
              <t>
                If the system generated a new Diffie-Hellman key in
                the previous step, or if it received a DIFFIE_HELLMAN
                parameter, it sets the ESP_INFO KEYMAT Index to zero.
                Otherwise, the ESP_INFO KEYMAT Index MUST be greater than
                or equal to the index of the next byte to be drawn
                from the current KEYMAT.  In this case, it is
                RECOMMENDED that the host use the KEYMAT Index
                requested by the peer in the received ESP_INFO.
              </t>
              <t>
                The system creates an UPDATE packet, which contains an
                ESP_INFO parameter and the optional DIFFIE_HELLMAN
                parameter.  This UPDATE would also typically
                acknowledge the peer's UPDATE with an ACK parameter,
                although a separate UPDATE ACK may be sent.
              </t>
              <t>
                The system sends the UPDATE packet and stores any
                received ESP_INFO and DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameters.  At
                this point, it only needs to receive an
                acknowledgment for the newly sent UPDATE to finish
                ESP SA update.  In the usual case, the acknowledgment
                is handled by the underlying UPDATE mechanism.
              </t>
            </list>
          </t>
        </section>
        
      </section>

      <section anchor="leave-rekey" title="Finalizing Rekeying">
        <t>
          A system finalizes rekeying when it has both received the
          corresponding UPDATE acknowledgment packet from the peer and
          it has successfully received the peer's UPDATE.  The
          following steps are taken:
          <list style="numbers">
            <t>
              If the received UPDATE messages contain a new
              Diffie-Hellman key, the system has a new Diffie-Hellman
              key due to initiating ESP SA update, or both, the system
              generates a new KEYMAT.  If there is only one new
              Diffie-Hellman key, the old existing key is used as the
              other key.
            </t>
            <t>
              If the system generated a new KEYMAT in the previous step,
              it sets the KEYMAT Index to zero, independent of whether the
              received UPDATE included a Diffie-Hellman key or not.  If
              the system did not generate a new KEYMAT, it uses the
              greater KEYMAT Index of the two (sent and received) 
              ESP_INFO parameters.
            </t>
            <t>
              The system draws keys for new incoming and outgoing ESP
              SAs, starting from the KEYMAT Index, and prepares new
              incoming and outgoing ESP SAs.  The SPI for the outgoing
              SA is the new SPI value received in an ESP_INFO parameter.
              The SPI for the incoming SA was generated when the
              ESP_INFO was sent to the peer.  The order of the keys
              retrieved from the KEYMAT during the rekeying process is
              similar to that described in <xref target="key"/>.  Note,
              that only IPsec ESP keys are retrieved during the rekeying
              process, not the HIP keys.
            </t>
            <t>
              The system starts to send to the new outgoing SA and
              prepares to start receiving data on the new incoming SA.
              Once the system receives data on the new incoming SA, it
              may safely delete the old SAs.
            </t>

          </list>
        </t>
      </section>


      <section title="Processing NOTIFY Packets">
        <t>
          The processing of NOTIFY packets is described in the HIP base
          specification.
        </t>
      </section>
      

    </section>


    <section anchor="key" title="Keying Material">
      <t>
        The keying material is generated as described in the HIP base
        specification.  During the base exchange, the initial keys are
        drawn from the generated material. After the HIP association
        keys have been drawn, the ESP keys are drawn in the following
        order:
  
        <list>
          <t>SA-gl ESP encryption key for HOST_g's outgoing
            traffic</t>
          <t>SA-gl ESP authentication key for HOST_g's outgoing
            traffic</t>
          <t>SA-lg ESP encryption key for HOST_l's outgoing
            traffic</t>
          <t>SA-lg ESP authentication key for HOST_l's outgoing
            traffic</t>
        </list>
      </t>
      <t>
        HOST_g denotes the host with the greater HIT value, and HOST_l
        denotes the host with the lower HIT value.  When HIT values are
        compared, they are interpreted as positive (unsigned) 128-bit
        integers in network byte order.  
      </t>
      <t>
        The four HIP keys are only drawn from KEYMAT during a HIP I1->R2
        exchange.  Subsequent rekeys using UPDATE will only draw the
        four ESP keys from KEYMAT.  <xref target="processing_her1" />
        describes the rules for reusing or regenerating KEYMAT based on
        the rekeying.  </t>

      <t>
        The number of bits drawn for a given algorithm is the
        "natural" size of the keys.  For the mandatory algorithms, the
        following sizes apply:
        <list style="hanging">
          <t hangText="AES">128 bits</t>
          <t hangText="SHA-1">160 bits</t>
          <t hangText="NULL">0 bits</t>
        </list>
      </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t>
        In this document, the usage of ESP <xref
        target="RFC4303" /> between HIP hosts to protect
        data traffic is introduced.  The Security Considerations
        for ESP are discussed in the ESP specification.
      </t>

      <t>
        There are different ways to establish an ESP Security
        Association between two nodes.  This can be done, e.g., using IKE
        <xref target="RFC4306" />.  This document specifies how the Host
        Identity Protocol is used to establish ESP Security
        Associations. 
      </t>

      <t>
        The following issues are new or have changed from the standard
        ESP usage:
        <list style="symbols">
          <t>Initial keying material generation</t>
          <t>Updating the keying material</t>
        </list>
      </t>

      <t>
        The initial keying material is generated using the Host Identity
        Protocol <xref target="RFC5201" /> using the
        Diffie-Hellman procedure.  This document extends the usage of the
        UPDATE packet, defined in the base specification, to modify
        existing ESP SAs.  The hosts may rekey, i.e., force the generation
        of new keying material using the Diffie-Hellman procedure.
        The initial setup of ESP SA between the hosts is done during
        the base exchange, and the message exchange is protected
        using methods provided by base exchange.  Changes in connection
        parameters means basically that the old ESP SA is removed 
        and a new one is generated once the UPDATE message exchange
        has been completed.  The message exchange is protected using
        the HIP association keys.  Both HMAC and signing of packets
        is used. 
      </t>

    </section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>
        This document defines additional parameters and NOTIFY error
        types for the Host Identity Protocol <xref
        target="RFC5201" />.
      </t>
      <t>
        The new parameters and their type numbers are defined in <xref
        target="espinfo" /> and <xref target="esptransform" />, and they
        have been added to the Parameter Type namespace specified in <xref
        target="RFC5201" />.

      </t>
      <t>
        The new NOTIFY error types and their values are defined in <xref
        target="notify_pars" />, and they have been added to the Notify Message
        Type namespace specified in <xref target="RFC5201"/>.

      </t>
      
    </section>
    <section title="Acknowledgments">
      <t>
        This document was separated from the base "Host Identity
        Protocol" specification in the beginning of 2005.  Since then, a
        number of people have contributed to the text by providing comments
        and modification proposals.  The list of people include Tom
        Henderson, Jeff Ahrenholz, Jan Melén, Jukka Ylitalo, and Miika
        Komu.  The authors also want to thank Charlie Kaufman for reviewing the
        document with his eye on the usage of crypto algorithms.
      </t>

      <t>
        Due to the history of this document, most of the ideas are
        inherited from the base "Host Identity Protocol" specification.
        Thus, the list of people in the Acknowledgments section of that
        specification is also valid for this document.  Many people have
        given valuable feedback, and our apologies to anyone whose
        name is missing.
      </t>
    </section>
   
  </middle>
  
  <back>

    <references title="Normative references">

      &RFC2119;
      &RFC2404;
      &RFC3602;
      &RFC4303;
<!-- draft-ietf-hip-base = RFC 5201 -->

<reference anchor='RFC5201'>
<front>
<title>Host Identity Protocol</title>

<author initials='R' surname='Moskowitz' fullname='Robert Moskowitz'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='P' surname='Nikander' fullname='Pekka Nikander'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='P' surname='Jokela' fullname='Petri Jokela'
role='editor'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='T' surname='Henderson' fullname='Tom  Henderson'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month="March" year="2008" />

</front>

<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5201" />

</reference>

    </references>
    <references title="Informative references">

<!--  &RFC2451; -->
<!--  &RFC2104; -->
<!--  &I-D.ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis; -->
      &RFC4306;
      &RFC4301;
<reference anchor='ESP-BEET'>
<front>
<title>A Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET) mode for ESP</title>

<author initials='P' surname='Nikander' fullname='P. Nikander'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='J' surname='Melen' fullname='J. Melen'>
    <organization />
</author>


<date month="November" year="2007"/>

</front>

<seriesInfo name="Work in" value="Progress" />

</reference>



<!-- draft-ietf-hip-mm = RFC 5206 -->

<reference anchor='RFC5206'>
<front>
<title>End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity
Protocol</title>

<author initials='T' surname='Henderson' fullname='Tom  Henderson'
role='editor'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month="March" year="2008"/>

</front>

<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5206" />

</reference>


      &RFC3260;
      &RFC3474;
      &RFC4423;
    </references>
<vspace blankLines="100" />
    <section anchor="impl_note" title="A Note on Implementation Options">        
      
      <t>
        It is possible to implement this specification in multiple
        different ways.  As noted above, one possible way of
        implementing this is to rewrite IP headers below IPsec.  In such an
        implementation, IPsec is used as if it was processing IPv6
        transport mode packets, with the IPv6 header containing HITs
        instead of IP addresses in the source and destination address
        fields.  In outgoing packets, after IPsec processing, the HITs
        are replaced with actual IP addresses, based on the HITs and
        the SPI.  In incoming packets, before IPsec processing, the IP
        addresses are replaced with HITs, based on the SPI in the
        incoming packet.  In such an implementation, all IPsec
        policies are based on HITs and the upper layers only see
        packets with HITs in the place of IP addresses.  Consequently,
        support of HIP does not conflict with other uses of IPsec as
        long as the SPI spaces are kept separate.
      </t>
      
      <t>
        Another way to implement this specification is to use the proposed BEET mode
        (A Bound End-to-End mode for ESP, <xref
          target="ESP-BEET" />).  The BEET mode
        provides some features from both IPsec tunnel and transport
        modes.  The HIP uses HITs as the "inner" addresses and IP
        addresses as "outer" addresses, like IP addresses are used in
        the tunnel mode.  Instead of tunneling packets between hosts,
        a conversion between inner and outer addresses is made at
        end-hosts and the inner address is never sent on the wire
        after the initial HIP negotiation.  BEET provides IPsec
        transport mode syntax (no inner headers) with limited tunnel
        mode semantics (fixed logical inner addresses - the HITs - and
        changeable outer IP addresses).
      </t>
      
      <t>
        Compared to the option of implementing the required address
        rewrites outside of IPsec, BEET has one implementation level
        benefit.  The BEET-way of implementing the address rewriting
        keeps all the configuration information in one place, at the
        SAD.  On the other hand, when address rewriting is
        implemented separately, the implementation must make sure
        that the information in the SAD and the separate address
        rewriting DB are kept in synchrony.  As a result, the
        BEET-mode-based way of implementing this specification is RECOMMENDED over the 
        separate implementation.
      </t>
      
    </section>

  </back>
</rfc>

<!-- Keep this comment at the end of the file
Local variables:
mode: xml
sgml-omittag:nil
sgml-shorttag:nil
sgml-namecase-general:nil
sgml-general-insert-case:lower
sgml-minimize-attributes:nil
sgml-always-quote-attributes:t
sgml-indent-step:2
sgml-indent-data:t
sgml-parent-document:nil
sgml-exposed-tags:nil
sgml-local-catalogs:nil
sgml-local-ecat-files:nil
End:
-->
