One document matched: draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt
Network Working Group Sheng Jiang
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Expires: August 2008 February 18th, 2008
Hierarchical Host Identity Tag Architecture
draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.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.
This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft.
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 August 15, 2008.
Abstract
This document analyzes the problems and limitation of the current
flat-structured Host Identity Tag (HIT, [RFC4423]) architecture. The
document specifies a hierarchical HIT architecture which is
compatible with the flat-structured HIT architecture. This
architecture and the process of HITs generation ensure the global
uniqueness of HITs. It also enables the multiple HIP management
domains, solves the deployment problem of current flat-structured HIT
architecture. It also enhances the scalability and resolution
efficiency of the mapping system.
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt February 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................2
2. Terminology.................................................2
3. Analysis of the Current Flat-structured HIT Architecture......2
4. Hierarchical HIT Architecture................................4
4.1. Compatible flat-structured HITs.........................5
4.2. HITs on HIP-enabled nodes...............................5
5. Generating a hierarchical HIT................................6
6. Security Considerations......................................7
7. IANA Considerations.........................................7
8. References..................................................7
8.1. Normative References....................................7
8.2. Informative References..................................7
Author's Addresses.............................................8
Intellectual Property Statement.................................8
Disclaimer of Validity.........................................8
Copyright Statement............................................9
1. Introduction
This document analyzes the problems and limitation of the current
flat-structured Host Identity Tag (HIT, [RFC4423]) architecture. The
document specifies a hierarchical HIT architecture, which splits a
HIT into two parts: a HIP management domain tag and a host tag. The
proposed hierarchical HIT architecture is also compatible with the
flat-structured HIT architecture. The format of HIT and the detail
process of HITs generation are defined. This architecture and the
process of HITs generation ensure the global uniqueness of HITs. This
architecture also enables the multiple HIP management domains, solves
the deployment problem of current flat-structured HIT architecture.
It also enhances the scalability and resolution efficiency of the
mapping system.
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 [1].
3. Analysis of the Current Flat-structured HIT Architecture
The original HIT concept was defined in [RFC4423]. ''A Host Identity
Tag (HIT) is used in other protocols to represent the Host Identity.''
It is a quite restricted definition. However, [HIP-base] has updated
the HIT concept and enhanced the functionality of HIT. ''... the Host
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt February 2008
Identity Tag (HIT), becomes the operational representation. It is 128
bits long and is used in the HIP payloads and to index the
corresponding state in the end hosts.''
In order to be able to represent hosts, the uniqueness of HITs is
required in global scope. ''In the HIP packets, the HITs identify the
sender and recipient of a packet. Consequently, a HIT should be
unique in the whole IP universe as long as it is being used.''
[RFC4423]
Although mathematically ''the probability of HIT collision between two
hosts is very low'' [HIP-base], there is no mechanism to ensure that a
HIT is global unique. The current defined HIT is generated according
to the ORCHID generation method described in [RFC4843]. [RFC4843]
suggests "several possible methods ... to preserve a low enough
probability of collisions''. However, it cannot guarantee the global
uniqueness of HITs. Furthermore, while the number of end devices
continuously grows in the future, the possibility of HIT collision
will increase rapidly. A technical mechanism is needed to ensure the
global uniqueness of HITs, particularly with the consideration that
collisions may happen.
[RFC 4423] states ''In the extremely rare case of a single HIT mapping
to more than one Host Identity, the Host Identifiers (public keys)
will make the final difference.'' It means the mapping system between
HIP and IP must store or at least be aware of the Host Identifiers of
all hosts. Given the facts that the Host Identifiers is quite large
and may be in various formats, the storage and management burden of
the mapping system could be quite high. If there was a mechanism to
ensure the global uniqueness of HITs, then, the mapping system would
not have to be aware the Host Identifiers.
Furthermore, within the flat-structured HIT architecture, the
robustness of resolution efficiency in the supporting mapping system
is in a big question mark: a mapping server has to hold or at least
to be able to access a large database that contains all HITs
information in the global scope. The number of HITs is at least in
billion-level giving the fact there are billions hosts now. In the
future, it may rapidly grow up to trillion-level, or even higher. The
storage burden, maintenance consumption and synchronization updating
are problems that are very difficult to solve. For each single
looking up operation, one may search through most of the database, on
average, O(number of total global HITs). It is unfeasible for both
computing power and time reasons.
One more disadvantage that the flat-structured HIT architecture is
the difficulties for management. There is no common between HITs that
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt February 2008
their HIs assigned by the same authority or that their represented
hosts have the same properties. Hence, it is difficult to categorize
HITS. The ACL operators have to have explicit list of HITs in the ACL.
Contrarily, the hierarchical HITs are aggregatable. It makes HITs
manageable. Each network manager just needs to manage and maintain
HITs and their mapping information in a relatively small range.
According to the above analysis, it is nature to break up the flat
HIT architecture into hierarchy. It can effectively break up global
uniqueness into smaller scope uniqueness. It can improve the
resolution processing and enhance the scalability and resolution
efficiency. Furthermore, it can optimize the management of both the
host identity and the mapping database. Each management domain is
responsible only for a part of the global HIT architecture. However,
it is useful that the new hierarchical HIT architecture keep
compatible with the flat HIT architecture for privacy purpose and
other usage scenarios.
4. Hierarchical HIT Architecture
In this document, we introduce a two-level hierarchically structured
HIT architecture. HIT is ''128 bits long value and is used in the HIP
payloads and to index the corresponding state in the end hosts.''
[HIP-base] ''In the HIP packets, the HITs identify the sender and
recipient of a packet.'' [RFC 4423] HITs refer to nodes or virtual
nodes. All nodes are required to have at least one HIT. A single node
may also have multiple HITs. Applications on a same node may bind to
different HITs. This is sometimes convenient for point-to-point
communications.
We break the current 128-bit flat-structured HIT into two parts: 32-
bit HIP management domain tag and 96-bit host tag. It can represent
maximum 2^32 management domains and 2^96 hosts within each management
domain.
| 32 bits | 96 bits |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| HIP management domain tag | host tag |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
For the secure consideration, we assign more bits to the host tag,
which is hash output, leaving less but enough bits for HIP management
domain tag. The more the number of bits the host tag is, the more
secure it is against brute-force attacks. In the worst case, if the
hash algorithm cannot be inverted, the expected number of iterations
required for a brute force attack is O(2^96) in order to find a host
identity that matches with a given host tag.
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt February 2008
The HIP management domain, as its literal, is a logic region in which
the HIs of all nodes are assigned by the same authority. Within a
same HIP management domain, all the nodes should have the same HIP
management domain tag or the same leftmost certain bits. Furthermore,
the authority may be organized internally hierarchically.
The HIP management domain tag should be assigned by a global
management organization with the principle that every HIP management
domain tag must be globally unique.
Consequentially, the HIP management domain tags may be organized
hierarchically. For example, a big organization may obtain a block of
HIP management tags with a given leftmost 24-bit. It then can assign
32-bit HIP management domain tags to its sub-organizations. All these
sub-organizations have the same leftmost 24-bit.
The host tags remain the original meaning of HIT - - ''a hashed encoding
of the Host Identity''. For each HIP management domain, it is
mandatory to maintain the uniqueness of all host tags. It is
guarantee by the process of generating a HIT, see Section 5.
For index and resolution purposes, HITs are aggregatable with
management domain tags of arbitrary bit-length, similar to IPv4
addresses under Classless Inter-Domain Routing [RFC4632].
4.1. Compatible flat-structured HITs
Obviously, not all hosts are willing to use hierarchical HITs in all
scenarios for various reasons, such as privacy, etc. Therefore, it is
useful that the hierarchical HIT architecture keep compatible with
the flat HIT architecture.
The flat HITs can be defined as a specific sub-set of the
hierarchical HITs architecture. With a the same reserved Flat HIT Tag
(2 or 3 bits) at the beginning and the number of bits that can be
chosen arbitrarily reduce 2 or 3 bits out of 128, flat HITs can be
used as defined in [RFC 4423].
| 128 bits |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|FHIT Tag| Flat host identity tag |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
4.2. HITs on HIP-enabled nodes
HIP-enabled nodes may have considerable or little knowledge of the
internal structure of the hierarchical HIT, depending on the role the
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt February 2008
node plays (for instance, host versus mapping server). At a minimum,
a node may consider pre-generated HITs have no internal structure:
| 128 bits |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| host identity tag |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Only sophisticated hosts may additionally be aware of the type of
their HITS and use the hierarchical structure of HITs to simplify the
resolution procedure.
5. Generating a hierarchical HIT
The process of generating a new hierarchical HIT takes three input
values: a 32-bit HIP management domain tag, a 2-bit collusion count,
the host identity (the public key of an asymmetric key pair). A
hierarchical HIT should be generated as follows:
1. Set the 2-bit collision count to zero.
2. Concatenate from left to right the HIP management domain tag,
the collusion count, and the host identity. Execute the SHA-1
algorithm on the concatenation. Take the 94 leftmost bits of
the SHA-1 hash value.
3. Concatenate from left to right the 32-bit HIP management
domain tag, the 2-bit collusion count and 94-bit hash output
to form a 128-bit HIT.
4. Perform duplicate detection within the HIP management domain
scope. If a HIT collision is detected, increment the collision
count by one and go back to step 2. However, after four
collisions, stop and report the error.
The design that includes the HIP management domain tag in the hash
input is mainly against the re-computation attack: create a database
of HITs and matching public keys. With the design, an attacker must
create a separate database for each HIP management domain.
The design reduces the number of bit of hash output from 96 to 94. It
does reduce the safety. However, O(2^94) iterations is large enough
to prevent brute-force attacks.
For security reason, the abovementioned SHA-1 hash algorithm may be
replaced any safer algorithm.
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt February 2008
6. Security Considerations
The most important security property of HIT is that it is self-
certifying (i.e., given a HIT, it is computationally hard to find a
Host Identity key that matches the HIT). Although this document
limits the hash output to be 94-bit long, it does not affect the self
certifying security property.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new namespace: HIP management domain tag. It
is a 32-bit long value, which represents a globally unique HIP
management domain. IANA may found an authority institute to manage
the global assignment of HIP management domain tag.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC4423] R. Moskowitz, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture",
RFC4423, May 2006.
[HIP-base]R. Moskowitz, ''Host Identity Protocol'', draft-ietf-hip-
base-10 (work in progress), Oct 2007.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4632] V. Fuller, ''Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The
Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan'', RFC4632,
August 2006.
[RFC4843] Nikander, "An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable
Cryptographic Hash Identifiers (ORCHID)", RFC 4843, April
2007.
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt February 2008
Author's Addresses
Sheng Jiang
Huawei Technologies
QuiKe Bld., No.6 Rd, Xinxi St.,
Shang-Di Information Industry Base,
Hai-Dian District, Beijing, P.R. China
100085
Phone: 86-10-82836774
Email: shengjiang@huawei.com
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-jiang-hiprg-hhit-arch-00.txt February 2008
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Jiang Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 9] | PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:37:36 |