RFC 9349: Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow Security
- D. Fedyk,
- E. Kinzie
Abstract
This document describes managed objects for the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) and IPsec. This document provides a read-only version of the objects defined in the YANG module for the same purpose, which is in "A YANG Data Model for IP Traffic Flow Security" (RFC 9348).¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://
1. Introduction
This document defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module for use
with network management protocols in the Internet community. IP Traffic
Flow Security (IP-TFS) extensions, as defined in
[RFC9347], are
enhancements to an IPsec tunnel Security Association (SA) to provide
improved traffic confidentiality
The objects defined here are the same as [RFC9348], with the exception that only operational or state data is supported. By making operational data accessible via SNMP, existing network management systems can monitor IP-TFS. This data is listed in the MIB tree in Section 4.1. This module uses the YANG data model as a reference point for managed objects. Note that an IETF MIB model for IPsec was never standardized; however, the structures here could be adapted to existing proprietary MIB implementations where SNMP is used to manage networks.¶
1.1. The Internet-Standard Management Framework
For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
Internet
Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, [RFC2578], STD 58, [RFC2579] and STD 58, [RFC2580].¶
2. Terminology and Concepts
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
3. Overview
This document defines the MIB for access to operational parameters of IP Traffic Flow Security (IP-TFS). IP-TFS, defined in [RFC9347], configures a Security Association for tunnel mode IPsec with characteristics that improve traffic confidentiality and reduce bandwidth efficiency loss.¶
This document is based on the concepts and management model defined in [RFC9348]. This document assumes familiarity with the IPsec concepts described in [RFC4301], IP-TFS as described in [RFC9347], and the IP-TFS management model described in [RFC9348].¶
This document specifies an extensible operational model for IP-TFS. It reuses the management model defined in [RFC9348]. It allows SNMP systems to read operational objects (which include configured objects) from IP-TFS.¶
4. Management Objects
4.2. SNMP
The following is the MIB for IP-TFS. The congestion control algorithm in [RFC5348] is referenced in the MIB text.¶
5. IANA Considerations
The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
OBJECT IDENTIFIER value, recorded in the "SMI Network Management
MGMT Codes Internet
6. Security Considerations
The MIB specified in this document can read the operational behavior of IP Traffic Flow Security. For the implications regarding write configuration, consult [RFC9347], which defines the functionality.¶
There are no management objects defined in this MIB module that have a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. So, if this MIB module is implemented correctly, then there is no risk that an intruder can alter or create any management objects of this MIB module via direct SNMP SET operations.¶
Some of the objects in this MIB module may be considered sensitive or
vulnerable in some network environments. This includes INDEX objects with a
MAX-ACCESS of not-accessible, and any indices from other modules exposed via
AUGMENTS. It is thus important to control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to
these objects and possibly to even encrypt the values of these objects when
sending them over the network via SNMP. These are the tables and objects and
their sensitivity
SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPsec), there is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access and GET (read) the objects in this MIB module.¶
Implementations SHOULD provide the security features described by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), and implementations claiming compliance to the SNMPv3 standard MUST include full support for authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826]. Implementations MAY also provide support for the Transport Security Model (TSM) [RFC5591] in combination with a secure transport such as SSH [RFC5592] or TLS/DTLS [RFC6353].¶
Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to enable cryptographic
security. It is then a customer
7. References
7.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC2578]
-
McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2578 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2578 - [RFC2579]
-
McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2579 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2579 - [RFC2580]
-
McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2580 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2580 - [RFC3414]
-
Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3414 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3414 - [RFC3826]
-
Blumenthal, U., Maino, F., and K. McCloghrie, "The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Cipher Algorithm in the SNMP User-based Security Model", RFC 3826, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3826 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3826 - [RFC5591]
-
Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 78, RFC 5591, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5591 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5591 - [RFC5592]
-
Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5592, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5592 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5592 - [RFC6353]
-
Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 78, RFC 6353, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6353 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6353 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC9347]
-
Hopps, C., "Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Its Use for IP Traffic Flow Security (IP-TFS)", RFC 9347, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9347 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9347
7.2. Informative References
- [RFC3410]
-
Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet
-Standard Management Framework" , RFC 3410, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC3410 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3410 - [RFC4301]
-
Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4301 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4301 - [RFC5348]
-
Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC 5348, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5348 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5348 - [RFC9348]
-
Fedyk, D. and C. Hopps, "A YANG Data Model for IP Traffic Flow Security", RFC 9348, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9348 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9348
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Chris Hopps, Lou Berger, and Tero Kivinen for their help and feedback on the MIB model.¶