<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<rfc category="std"
     docName="draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-reliable-transport-04"
     ipr="trust200902" submissionType="IETF">
  <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

  <?rfc toc="yes" ?>

  <?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>

  <?rfc sortrefs="no"?>

  <?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>

  <?rfc strict="yes" ?>

  <front>
    <title abbrev="Separate IKE and ESP Transports">Separate Transports for
    IKE and ESP</title>

    <author fullname="Valery Smyslov" initials="V." surname="Smyslov">
      <organization>ELVIS-PLUS</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>

          <city></city>

          <code></code>

          <country>RU</country>
        </postal>

        <phone></phone>

        <email>svan@elvis.ru</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Tirumaleswar Reddy" initials="T." surname="Reddy">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>

          <country>India</country>
        </postal>

        <email>kondtir@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date />

    <abstract>
      <t>The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) can operate
      either over unreliable (UDP) transport or over reliable (TCP) transport.
      If TCP is used, then IPsec tunnels created by IKEv2 also use TCP. This
      document specifies how to decouple IKEv2 and IPsec transports so that
      IKEv2 can operate over TCP, while IPsec tunnels use unreliable
      transport. This feature allows IKEv2 to effectively exchange large blobs
      of data (e.g., when post-quantum algorithms are employed) while avoiding
      performance problems that arise when IPsec uses TCP.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) <xref
      target="RFC7296"></xref> originally used unreliable transport (UDP) for
      its messages. Later it was extended to use TCP <xref
      target="RFC9329"></xref> where UDP is blocked. UDP remains the preferred
      transport for IKEv2, and TCP is only used if UDP datagrams cannot get
      through.</t>

      <t>Originally IKEv2 peers exchanged only a small amount of data, so that
      simple retransmission mechanism on top of UDP with no congestion control
      sufficed. The situation has changed when post-quantum cryptographic
      (PQC) algorithms began to be incorporated into IKEv2 <xref
      target="RFC9370"></xref>. Most of post-quantum algorithms require IKE
      peers to exchange much more data, than classical algorithms, up to tens
      (or even hundreds) Kbytes. A few proposals exist that allow to overcome
      the 64 Kbytes limitation on the size of an IKE payload (<xref
      target="I-D.nir-ipsecme-big-payload"></xref>, <xref
      target="I-D.smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-extended-pld"></xref>, <xref
      target="I-D.tjhai-ikev2-beyond-64k-limit"></xref>).</t>

      <t>When IKE messages grow to tens or even hundreds of kilobytes, using
      UDP as a transport becomes challenging. The use of IKE fragmentation
      <xref target="RFC7383"></xref> helps mitigate IP fragmentation issues
      and ensures that each IKE message fragment fits into a UDP datagram,
      even if the original message does not. However, all IKE fragments are
      always sent (and retransmitted) simultaneously, meaning that as the
      number of fragments increases and congestion control remains absent, the
      simple retransmission mechanism of IKEv2 will perform poorly potentially
      causing even more problems for the network.</t>

      <t>Using reliable transport (e.g., TCP) for IKEv2 could be a solution to
      the problem. However, the current use of TCP as defined in <xref
      target="RFC9329"></xref> implies that ESP SAs are also encapsulated in
      TCP, which has negative impact on IPsec performance (see Section 9 of
      <xref target="RFC9329"></xref>).</t>

      <t>In some cases, a pure PQC Key Exchange may be required for specific
      deployments, particularly those governed by regulatory or compliance
      mandates that necessitate exclusive use of post-quantum cryptography.
      Examples include high-security environments or sectors governed by
      stringent cryptographic standards. In this case larger amount of data
      need to be sent in the IKE_SA_INIT exchnage, that makes using UDP
      problematic. For PQ KEM algorithms, if TCP is used for IKEv2 and peers
      do not require traditional algorithms, then PQ KEM can be used directly
      within the IKE_SA_INIT message when TCP transport is enabled for IKEv2.
      This approach allows IKEv2 to avoid UDP fragmentation concerns while
      enabling a purely post-quantum key exchange for deployments requiring
      exclusive PQC use.</t>

      <t>The proposed mechanism enables the use of all parameter sets of a
      post-quantum key exchange algorithm in IKE_SA_INIT as a
      quantum-resistant-only key exchange. Unlike approaches that limit the
      parameter sets based on message size constraints, this specification
      supports the use of larger parameter sets when IKEv2 is transported over
      TCP. This allows deployments requiring a pure post-quantum key exchange
      to establish keys during the IKE_SA_INIT exchange without concerns about
      exceeding typical network MTUs.</t>

      <t>This specification allows to decouple IKE and IPsec transports,
      making it possible to use a reliable transport for IKEv2 while
      continuing to use an unreliable transport for IPsec.</t>

      <t>The idea to decouple IKE and IPsec transports was originally
      presented in <xref
      target="I-D.tjhai-ikev2-beyond-64k-limit"></xref>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="mustshouldmay" title="Terminology and Notation">
      <t>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
      <xref target="RFC2119"></xref> <xref target="RFC8174"></xref> when, and
      only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="protocol" title="Protocol Details">
      <section title="Discovery of TCP Transport Support for IKEv2">
        <t>If the initiator supports this extension, is configured to use it,
        and does not know whether the responder supports IKEv2 over TCP, the
        initiator starts the IKE_SA_INIT exchange over UDP port 4500, as per
        <xref target="RFC7296"></xref>. In this case, the initiator includes
        the SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS notification (&lt;TBA by IANA&gt;) in the
        IKE_SA_INIT request. This allows the initiator to discover whether the
        responder supports the use of separate transports for IKE (over TCP)
        and ESP (over UDP). Using UDP port 4500 ensures that IPsec traffic can
        traverse NATs and intermediate devices that allow UDP encapsulation.
        If the responder supports this extension and receives the
        SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS notification in the IKE_SA_INIT request, it
        responds with the same notification in the IKE_SA_INIT response. Upon
        receiving the SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS notification in the response, the
        initiator MUST switch to TCP port 4500 for subsequent exchanges
        (IKE_INTERMEDIATE or IKE_AUTH). The responder MUST be prepared to
        receive these exchanges over TCP.</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
Initiator (UDP:4500)               Responder (UDP:4500)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IKE_SA_INIT request:
HDR , SAi1, KEi1, Ni,
[N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP),]
N(SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS)  --->
                                   IKE_SA_INIT response:                                   
                                   HDR, SAr1, KEr1, Nr,
                                   [N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
                                   N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP),]
                             <---  N(SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS)

=> Initiator switches to TCP:4500 for IKE_INTERMEDIATE / 
   IKE_AUTH / subsequent IKEv2 exchanges  
=> ESP over UDP or IP if possible, else over TCP
          ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Using TCP Transport for IKEv2 from the Start">
        <t>Alternatively, the initiator may start IKE_SA_INIT over TCP port
        4500 directly, as specified in <xref target="RFC9329"></xref>, for
        example, when large key exchange payloads (with large public keys) are
        expected. In this case, the initiator includes the SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS
        notification in the IKE_SA_INIT request to indicate its preference to
        use separate transports; IKEv2 over TCP and ESP over UDP, provided
        that UDP is not blocked in the network path.</t>

        <t>If the responder supports this extension, it includes the
        SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS notification in the IKE_SA_INIT response. In this
        case, Child SAs are created as specified in <xref
        target="RFC7296"></xref>, with ESP sent over UDP (or directly over IP)
        if possible. If both UDP and IP are blocked, ESP is sent over TCP as
        described in <xref target="RFC9329"></xref>. </t>

        <t>If the responder does not support the SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS
        notification (i.e., the notification is not echoed in the response),
        the initiator MUST treat this as an indication that the responder does
        not support separate transports. In this case, both IKEv2 and ESP MUST
        use TCP transport for all subsequent exchanges, as per <xref
        target="RFC9329"></xref>.</t>

        <t>In both scenarios, once the IKEv2 exchange switches to TCP
        transport, either after IKE_SA_INIT or if TCP was used from the
        beginning, all subsequent IKEv2 exchanges MUST continue to use
        TCP.</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
Initiator (TCP)                     Responder (TCP:4500)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IKE_SA_INIT request:
HDR , SAi1, KEi1, Ni,
[N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP),]
N(SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS)  --->
                                   IKE_SA_INIT response:                                   
                                   HDR, SAr1, KEr1, Nr,
                                   [N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
                                   N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP),]
                             <---  N(SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS)


=> All subsequent IKEv2 messages continue over TCP  
=> ESP over UDP or IP if possible, else over TCP
          ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Notification Format">
        <t>The SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS notification has Protocol ID set to 0 and
        SPI Size set to 0. This specification does not define any notification
        data, the notification is sent with no data. Future specifications may
        define data for this notification. Peers conforming to this
        specification MUST ignore any data if present.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="ESP Behavior">
        <t>Child SAs are created as specified in <xref
        target="RFC7296"></xref>. ESP packets either use direct transport over
        IP or are UDP encapsulated if NAT is detected. If UDP transport for
        ESP becomes unavailable (e.g., blocked by a firewall), peers MAY
        switch ESP to use TCP transport as specified in <xref
        target="RFC9329"></xref>. Peers are responsible for maintaining NAT
        mappings by sending NAT keepalive packets (see Section 2.23 of <xref
        target="RFC7296"></xref>) when ESP over UDP is used. If ESP is
        transported over a different protocol than IKE, intermediate devices
        might apply different filtering rules. To detect possible connectivity
        issues with ESP traffic, the encrypted ESP ping mechanism defined in
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-ipsecme-encrypted-esp-ping"></xref> MAY be
        used.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="interaction" title="Interaction with IKEv2 Extensions">
      <t>MOBIKE <xref target="RFC4555"></xref> allows an IKE SA, along with
      its Child SAs, to migrate from one IP address to another. Section 7.1 of
      <xref target="RFC9329"></xref> specifies that when using TCP as the IKE
      transport, a peer should attempt to switch back to UDP in the event of
      an IP address change. This specification updates that requirement: when
      separate transports are used for IKE and ESP, peers MUST NOT attempt to
      switch the IKE SA transport from TCP to UDP. However, an ESP SA MAY
      switch from UDP to TCP if UDP is blocked at the new IP address.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>Section 10 of <xref target="RFC9329"></xref> discusses security
      implications of using TCP as IKE transport.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document defines a new Notify Message Type in the "IKEv2 Notify
      Message Status Types" registry:</t>

      <figure align="center">
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
<TBA>         SEPARATE_TRANSPORTS
            ]]></artwork>
      </figure>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7296.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9329.xml" ?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4555.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7383.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9370.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.nir-ipsecme-big-payload.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.tjhai-ikev2-beyond-64k-limit.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-extended-pld.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-ipsecme-encrypted-esp-ping.xml" ?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
