File: rfc5201.html

package info (click to toggle)
doc-rfc 20230121-1
links: PTS, VCS
area: non-free
in suites: bookworm, forky, sid, trixie
size: 1,609,944 kB
file content (5821 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 284,252 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<pre>Network Working Group                                       R. Moskowitz
Request for Comments: 5201                                      ICSAlabs
Category: Experimental                                       P. Nikander
                                                          P. Jokela, Ed.
                                            Ericsson Research NomadicLab
                                                            T. Henderson
                                                      The Boeing Company
                                                              April 2008


                         <span class="h1">Host Identity Protocol</span>

Status of This Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

IESG Note

   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.

   This document doesn't currently define support for parameterized
   (randomized) hashing in signatures, support for negotiation of a key
   derivation function, or support for combined encryption modes.

   HIP defines the usage of RSA in signing and encrypting data.  Current
   recommendations propose usage of, for example, RSA OAEP/PSS for these
   operations in new protocols.  Changing the algorithms to more current
   best practice should be considered.

   The current specification is currently using HMAC for message
   authentication.  This is considered to be acceptable for an
   experimental RFC, but future versions must define a more generic
   method for message authentication, including the ability for other
   MAC algorithms to be used.

   SHA-1 is no longer a preferred hashing algorithm.  This is noted also
   by the authors, and it is understood that future, non-experimental
   versions must consider more secure hashing algorithms.

   HIP requires that an incoming packet's IP address be ignored.  In
   simple cases this can be done, but when there are security policies
   based on incoming interface or IP address rules, the situation




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   changes.  The handling of data needs to be enhanced to cover
   different types of network and security configurations, as well as to
   meet local security policies.

Abstract

   This memo specifies the details of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP).
   HIP allows consenting hosts to securely establish and maintain shared
   IP-layer state, allowing separation of the identifier and locator
   roles of IP addresses, thereby enabling continuity of communications
   across IP address changes.  HIP is based on a Sigma-compliant Diffie-
   Hellman key exchange, using public key identifiers from a new Host
   Identity namespace for mutual peer authentication.  The protocol is
   designed to be resistant to denial-of-service (DoS) and man-in-the-
   middle (MitM) attacks.  When used together with another suitable
   security protocol, such as the Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP),
   it provides integrity protection and optional encryption for upper-
   layer protocols, such as TCP and UDP.

Table of Contents

   <a href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-5">5</a>
     <a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>.  A New Namespace and Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-5">5</a>
     <a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>.  The HIP Base Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-6">6</a>
     <a href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>.  Memo Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-7">7</a>
   <a href="#section-2">2</a>.  Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-7">7</a>
     <a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>.  Requirements Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-7">7</a>
     <a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>.  Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-7">7</a>
     <a href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-7">7</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>.  Host Identifier (HI) and Its Representations  . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-8">8</a>
     <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Host Identity Tag (HIT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-9">9</a>
     <a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>.  Generating a HIT from an HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-9">9</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>.  Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
     <a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>.  Creating a HIP Association  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
       <a href="#section-4.1.1">4.1.1</a>.  HIP Puzzle Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-12">12</a>
       <a href="#section-4.1.2">4.1.2</a>.  Puzzle Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-13">13</a>
       <a href="#section-4.1.3">4.1.3</a>.  Authenticated Diffie-Hellman Protocol . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-14">14</a>
       <a href="#section-4.1.4">4.1.4</a>.  HIP Replay Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-14">14</a>
       <a href="#section-4.1.5">4.1.5</a>.  Refusing a HIP Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-15">15</a>
       <a href="#section-4.1.6">4.1.6</a>.  HIP Opportunistic Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-16">16</a>
     <a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>.  Updating a HIP Association  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-18">18</a>
     <a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>.  Error Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-18">18</a>
     <a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>.  HIP State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-19">19</a>
       <a href="#section-4.4.1">4.4.1</a>.  HIP States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-20">20</a>
       <a href="#section-4.4.2">4.4.2</a>.  HIP State Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-21">21</a>
       <a href="#section-4.4.3">4.4.3</a>.  Simplified HIP State Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-28">28</a>
     <a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>.  User Data Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-30">30</a>
       4.5.1.  TCP and UDP Pseudo-Header Computation for User Data .  30



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


       <a href="#section-4.5.2">4.5.2</a>.  Sending Data on HIP Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-30">30</a>
       <a href="#section-4.5.3">4.5.3</a>.  Transport Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-30">30</a>
       <a href="#section-4.5.4">4.5.4</a>.  Reboot and SA Timeout Restart of HIP  . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-30">30</a>
     <a href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>.  Certificate Distribution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-31">31</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>.  Packet Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-31">31</a>
     <a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>.  Payload Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-31">31</a>
       <a href="#section-5.1.1">5.1.1</a>.  Checksum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-33">33</a>
       <a href="#section-5.1.2">5.1.2</a>.  HIP Controls  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-33">33</a>
       <a href="#section-5.1.3">5.1.3</a>.  HIP Fragmentation Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-33">33</a>
     <a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>.  HIP Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-34">34</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.1">5.2.1</a>.  TLV Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-37">37</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.2">5.2.2</a>.  Defining New Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-38">38</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.3">5.2.3</a>.  R1_COUNTER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-39">39</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.4">5.2.4</a>.  PUZZLE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-40">40</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.5">5.2.5</a>.  SOLUTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-41">41</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.6">5.2.6</a>.  DIFFIE_HELLMAN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-42">42</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.7">5.2.7</a>.  HIP_TRANSFORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-43">43</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.8">5.2.8</a>.  HOST_ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-44">44</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.9">5.2.9</a>.  HMAC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-45">45</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.10">5.2.10</a>. HMAC_2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-46">46</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.11">5.2.11</a>. HIP_SIGNATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-46">46</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.12">5.2.12</a>. HIP_SIGNATURE_2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-47">47</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.13">5.2.13</a>. SEQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-48">48</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.14">5.2.14</a>. ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-48">48</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.15">5.2.15</a>. ENCRYPTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-49">49</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.16">5.2.16</a>. NOTIFICATION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-50">50</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.17">5.2.17</a>. ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-54">54</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.18">5.2.18</a>. ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-54">54</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.19">5.2.19</a>. ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-55">55</a>
       <a href="#section-5.2.20">5.2.20</a>. ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-56">56</a>
     <a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>.  HIP Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-56">56</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.1">5.3.1</a>.  I1 - the HIP Initiator Packet . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-58">58</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.2">5.3.2</a>.  R1 - the HIP Responder Packet . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-58">58</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.3">5.3.3</a>.  I2 - the Second HIP Initiator Packet  . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-61">61</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.4">5.3.4</a>.  R2 - the Second HIP Responder Packet  . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-62">62</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.5">5.3.5</a>.  UPDATE - the HIP Update Packet  . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-62">62</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.6">5.3.6</a>.  NOTIFY - the HIP Notify Packet  . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-63">63</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.7">5.3.7</a>.  CLOSE - the HIP Association Closing Packet  . . . . .  <a href="#page-64">64</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.8">5.3.8</a>.  CLOSE_ACK - the HIP Closing Acknowledgment Packet . .  <a href="#page-64">64</a>
     <a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>.  ICMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-65">65</a>
       <a href="#section-5.4.1">5.4.1</a>.  Invalid Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-65">65</a>
       5.4.2.  Other Problems with the HIP Header and Packet
               Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-65">65</a>
       <a href="#section-5.4.3">5.4.3</a>.  Invalid Puzzle Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-65">65</a>
       <a href="#section-5.4.4">5.4.4</a>.  Non-Existing HIP Association  . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-66">66</a>
   <a href="#section-6">6</a>.  Packet Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-66">66</a>
     <a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Processing Outgoing Application Data  . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-66">66</a>
     <a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Processing Incoming Application Data  . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-67">67</a>



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


     <a href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  Solving the Puzzle  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-68">68</a>
     <a href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>.  HMAC and SIGNATURE Calculation and Verification . . . . .  <a href="#page-70">70</a>
       <a href="#section-6.4.1">6.4.1</a>.  HMAC Calculation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-70">70</a>
       <a href="#section-6.4.2">6.4.2</a>.  Signature Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-72">72</a>
     <a href="#section-6.5">6.5</a>.  HIP KEYMAT Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-74">74</a>
     <a href="#section-6.6">6.6</a>.  Initiation of a HIP Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-75">75</a>
       <a href="#section-6.6.1">6.6.1</a>.  Sending Multiple I1s in Parallel  . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-76">76</a>
       6.6.2.  Processing Incoming ICMP Protocol Unreachable
               Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-77">77</a>
     <a href="#section-6.7">6.7</a>.  Processing Incoming I1 Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-77">77</a>
       <a href="#section-6.7.1">6.7.1</a>.  R1 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-78">78</a>
       <a href="#section-6.7.2">6.7.2</a>.  Handling Malformed Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-79">79</a>
     <a href="#section-6.8">6.8</a>.  Processing Incoming R1 Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-79">79</a>
       <a href="#section-6.8.1">6.8.1</a>.  Handling Malformed Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-81">81</a>
     <a href="#section-6.9">6.9</a>.  Processing Incoming I2 Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-81">81</a>
       <a href="#section-6.9.1">6.9.1</a>.  Handling Malformed Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-84">84</a>
     <a href="#section-6.10">6.10</a>. Processing Incoming R2 Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-84">84</a>
     <a href="#section-6.11">6.11</a>. Sending UPDATE Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-84">84</a>
     <a href="#section-6.12">6.12</a>. Receiving UPDATE Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-85">85</a>
       6.12.1. Handling a SEQ Parameter in a Received UPDATE
               Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-86">86</a>
       6.12.2. Handling an ACK Parameter in a Received UPDATE
               Packet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-87">87</a>
     <a href="#section-6.13">6.13</a>. Processing NOTIFY Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-87">87</a>
     <a href="#section-6.14">6.14</a>. Processing CLOSE Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-88">88</a>
     <a href="#section-6.15">6.15</a>. Processing CLOSE_ACK Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-88">88</a>
     <a href="#section-6.16">6.16</a>. Handling State Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-88">88</a>
   <a href="#section-7">7</a>.  HIP Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-89">89</a>
   <a href="#section-8">8</a>.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-89">89</a>
   <a href="#section-9">9</a>.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-92">92</a>
   <a href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-93">93</a>
   <a href="#section-11">11</a>. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-95">95</a>
     <a href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-95">95</a>
     <a href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-96">96</a>
   <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>.  Using Responder Puzzles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-98">98</a>
   <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>.  Generating a Public Key Encoding from an HI  . . . .  <a href="#page-99">99</a>
   <a href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a>.  Example Checksums for HIP Packets  . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-100">100</a>
     <a href="#appendix-C.1">C.1</a>.  IPv6 HIP Example (I1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-100">100</a>
     <a href="#appendix-C.2">C.2</a>.  IPv4 HIP Packet (I1)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-100">100</a>
     <a href="#appendix-C.3">C.3</a>.  TCP Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-101">101</a>
   <a href="#appendix-D">Appendix D</a>.  384-Bit Group  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-101">101</a>
   <a href="#appendix-E">Appendix E</a>.  OAKLEY Well-Known Group 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-102">102</a>









<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction</span>

   This memo specifies the details of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP).
   A high-level description of the protocol and the underlying
   architectural thinking is available in the separate HIP architecture
   description [<a href="./rfc4423" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture&quot;">RFC4423</a>].  Briefly, the HIP architecture proposes an
   alternative to the dual use of IP addresses as "locators" (routing
   labels) and "identifiers" (endpoint, or host, identifiers).  In HIP,
   public cryptographic keys, of a public/private key pair, are used as
   Host Identifiers, to which higher layer protocols are bound instead
   of an IP address.  By using public keys (and their representations)
   as host identifiers, dynamic changes to IP address sets can be
   directly authenticated between hosts, and if desired, strong
   authentication between hosts at the TCP/IP stack level can be
   obtained.

   This memo specifies the base HIP protocol ("base exchange") used
   between hosts to establish an IP-layer communications context, called
   HIP association, prior to communications.  It also defines a packet
   format and procedures for updating an active HIP association.  Other
   elements of the HIP architecture are specified in other documents,
   such as.

   o  "Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format
      with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)" [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>]: how to use the
      Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) for integrity protection and
      optional encryption

   o  "End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity
      Protocol" [<a href="./rfc5206" title="&quot;End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5206</a>]: how to support mobility and multihoming in
      HIP

   o  "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions"
      [<a href="./rfc5205" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions&quot;">RFC5205</a>]: how to extend DNS to contain Host Identity information

   o  "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension" [<a href="./rfc5204" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension&quot;">RFC5204</a>]:
      using a rendezvous mechanism to contact mobile HIP hosts

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>.  A New Namespace and Identifiers</span>

   The Host Identity Protocol introduces a new namespace, the Host
   Identity namespace.  Some ramifications of this new namespace are
   explained in the HIP architecture description [<a href="./rfc4423" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture&quot;">RFC4423</a>].

   There are two main representations of the Host Identity, the full
   Host Identifier (HI) and the Host Identity Tag (HIT).  The HI is a
   public key and directly represents the Identity.  Since there are
   different public key algorithms that can be used with different key



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   lengths, the HI is not good for use as a packet identifier, or as an
   index into the various operational tables needed to support HIP.
   Consequently, a hash of the HI, the Host 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.  The HIT has an important security property in that it is
   self-certifying (see <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>).

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>.  The HIP Base Exchange</span>

   The HIP base exchange is a two-party cryptographic protocol used to
   establish communications context between hosts.  The base exchange is
   a Sigma-compliant [<a href="#ref-KRA03" title="&quot;SIGMA: The 'SIGn-and-MAc' Approach to Authenticated Diffie-Hellman and Its Use in the IKE- Protocols&quot;">KRA03</a>] four-packet exchange.  The first party is
   called the Initiator and the second party the Responder.  The four-
   packet design helps to make HIP DoS resilient.  The protocol
   exchanges Diffie-Hellman keys in the 2nd and 3rd packets, and
   authenticates the parties in the 3rd and 4th packets.  Additionally,
   the Responder starts a puzzle exchange in the 2nd packet, with the
   Initiator completing it in the 3rd packet before the Responder stores
   any state from the exchange.

   The exchange can use the Diffie-Hellman output to encrypt the Host
   Identity of the Initiator in the 3rd packet (although Aura, et al.,
   [<a href="#ref-AUR03" title="&quot;Analysis of the HIP Base Exchange Protocol&quot;">AUR03</a>] notes that such operation may interfere with packet-
   inspecting middleboxes), or the Host Identity may instead be sent
   unencrypted.  The Responder's Host Identity is not protected.  It
   should be noted, however, that both the Initiator's and the
   Responder's HITs are transported as such (in cleartext) in the
   packets, allowing an eavesdropper with a priori knowledge about the
   parties to verify their identities.

   Data packets start to flow after the 4th packet.  The 3rd and 4th HIP
   packets may carry a data payload in the future.  However, the details
   of this are to be defined later as more implementation experience is
   gained.

   An existing HIP association can be updated using the update mechanism
   defined in this document, and when the association is no longer
   needed, it can be closed using the defined closing mechanism.

   Finally, HIP is designed as an end-to-end authentication and key
   establishment protocol, to be used with Encapsulated Security Payload
   (ESP) [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>] and other end-to-end security protocols.  The base
   protocol does not cover all the fine-grained policy control found in
   Internet Key Exchange (IKE) [<a href="./rfc4306" title="&quot;Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol&quot;">RFC4306</a>] that allows IKE to support
   complex gateway policies.  Thus, HIP is not a replacement for IKE.





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.3" href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>.  Memo Structure</span>

   The rest of this memo is structured as follows.  <a href="#section-2">Section 2</a> defines
   the central keywords, notation, and terms used throughout the rest of
   the document.  <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a> defines the structure of the Host Identity
   and its various representations.  <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a> gives an overview of the
   HIP base exchange protocol.  Sections <a href="#section-5">5</a> and <a href="#section-6">6</a> define the detail
   packet formats and rules for packet processing.  Finally, Sections <a href="#section-7">7</a>,
   8, and 9 discuss policy, security, and IANA considerations,
   respectively.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  Terms and Definitions</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>.  Requirements Terminology</span>

   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 <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>.  Notation</span>

   [<a id="ref-x">x</a>]   indicates that x is optional.

   {x}   indicates that x is encrypted.

   X(y)   indicates that y is a parameter of X.

   &lt;x&gt;i   indicates that x exists i times.

   --&gt;   signifies "Initiator to Responder" communication (requests).

   &lt;--   signifies "Responder to Initiator" communication (replies).

   |  signifies concatenation of information-- e.g., X | Y is the
      concatenation of X with Y.

   Ltrunc (SHA-1(), K)   denotes the lowest order K bits of the SHA-1
      result.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.3" href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>.  Definitions</span>

   Unused Association Lifetime (UAL):   Implementation-specific time for
      which, if no packet is sent or received for this time interval, a
      host MAY begin to tear down an active association.

   Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL):   Maximum time that a TCP segment is
      expected to spend in the network.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   Exchange Complete (EC):   Time that the host spends at the R2-SENT
      before it moves to ESTABLISHED state.  The time is n * I2
      retransmission timeout, where n is about I2_RETRIES_MAX.

   HIT Hash Algorithm:   Hash algorithm used to generate a Host Identity
      Tag (HIT) from the Host Identity public key.  Currently SHA-1
      [<a href="#ref-FIPS95" title="&quot;FIPS PUB 180-1: Secure Hash Standard&quot;">FIPS95</a>] is used.

   Responder's HIT Hash Algorithm (RHASH):   Hash algorithm used for
      various hash calculations in this document.  The algorithm is the
      same as is used to generate the Responder's HIT.  RHASH is defined
      by the Orchid Context ID.  For HIP, the present RHASH algorithm is
      defined in <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>.  A future version of HIP may define a new
      RHASH algorithm by defining a new Context ID.

   Opportunistic mode:   HIP base exchange where the Responder's HIT is
      not known a priori to the Initiator.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Host Identifier (HI) and Its Representations</span>

   In this section, the properties of the Host Identifier and Host
   Identifier Tag are discussed, and the exact format for them is
   defined.  In HIP, the public key of an asymmetric key pair is used as
   the Host Identifier (HI).  Correspondingly, the host itself is
   defined as the entity that holds the private key from the key pair.
   See the HIP architecture specification [<a href="./rfc4423" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture&quot;">RFC4423</a>] for more details
   about the difference between an identity and the corresponding
   identifier.

   HIP implementations MUST support the Rivest Shamir Adelman (RSA/SHA1)
   [<a href="./rfc3110" title="&quot;RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC3110</a>] public key algorithm, and SHOULD support the Digital
   Signature Algorithm (DSA) [<a href="./rfc2536" title="&quot;DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC2536</a>] algorithm; other algorithms MAY
   be supported.

   A hashed encoding of the HI, the Host Identity Tag (HIT), is used in
   protocols to represent the Host Identity.  The HIT is 128 bits long
   and has the following three key properties: i) it is the same length
   as an IPv6 address and can be used in address-sized fields in APIs
   and protocols, ii) it is self-certifying (i.e., given a HIT, it is
   computationally hard to find a Host Identity key that matches the
   HIT), and iii) the probability of HIT collision between two hosts is
   very low.

   Carrying HIs and HITs in the header of user data packets would
   increase the overhead of packets.  Thus, it is not expected that they
   are carried in every packet, but other methods are used to map the
   data packets to the corresponding HIs.  In some cases, this makes it
   possible to use HIP without any additional headers in the user data



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   packets.  For example, if ESP is used to protect data traffic, the
   Security Parameter Index (SPI) carried in the ESP header can be used
   to map the encrypted data packet to the correct HIP association.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Host Identity Tag (HIT)</span>

   The Host Identity Tag is a 128-bit value -- a hashed encoding of the
   Host Identifier.  There are two advantages of using a hashed encoding
   over the actual Host Identity public key in protocols.  Firstly, its
   fixed length makes for easier protocol coding and also better manages
   the packet size cost of this technology.  Secondly, it presents a
   consistent format to the protocol whatever underlying identity
   technology is used.

   <a href="./rfc4843">RFC 4843</a> [<a href="./rfc4843" title="&quot;An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers (ORCHID)&quot;">RFC4843</a>] specifies 128-bit hash-based identifiers, called
   Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers (ORCHIDs).  Their
   prefix, allocated from the IPv6 address block, is defined in
   [<a href="./rfc4843" title="&quot;An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers (ORCHID)&quot;">RFC4843</a>].  The Host Identity Tag is a type of ORCHID, based on a
   SHA-1 hash of the Host Identity, as defined in <a href="./rfc4843#section-2">Section&nbsp;2 of
   [RFC4843]</a>.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>.  Generating a HIT from an HI</span>

   The HIT MUST be generated according to the ORCHID generation method
   described in [<a href="./rfc4843" title="&quot;An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers (ORCHID)&quot;">RFC4843</a>] using a context ID value of 0xF0EF F02F BFF4
   3D0F E793 0C3C 6E61 74EA (this tag value has been generated randomly
   by the editor of this specification), and an input that encodes the
   Host Identity field (see <a href="#section-5.2.8">Section 5.2.8</a>) present in a HIP payload
   packet.  The hash algorithm SHA-1 has to be used when generating HITs
   with this context ID.  If a new ORCHID hash algorithm is needed in
   the future for HIT generation, a new version of HIP has to be
   specified with a new ORCHID context ID associated with the new hash
   algorithm.

   For Identities that are either RSA or Digital Signature Algorithm
   (DSA) public keys, this input consists of the public key encoding as
   specified in the corresponding DNSSEC document, taking the algorithm-
   specific portion of the RDATA part of the KEY RR.  There are
   currently only two defined public key algorithms: RSA/SHA1 and DSA.
   Hence, either of the following applies:

      The RSA public key is encoded as defined in <a href="./rfc3110#section-2">[RFC3110] Section&nbsp;2</a>,
      taking the exponent length (e_len), exponent (e), and modulus (n)
      fields concatenated.  The length (n_len) of the modulus (n) can be
      determined from the total HI Length and the preceding HI fields
      including the exponent (e).  Thus, the data to be hashed has the
      same length as the HI.  The fields MUST be encoded in network byte
      order, as defined in [<a href="./rfc3110" title="&quot;RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC3110</a>].



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                      [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


      The DSA public key is encoded as defined in <a href="./rfc2536#section-2">[RFC2536] Section&nbsp;2</a>,
      taking the fields T, Q, P, G, and Y, concatenated.  Thus, the data
      to be hashed is 1 + 20 + 3 * 64 + 3 * 8 * T octets long, where T
      is the size parameter as defined in [<a href="./rfc2536" title="&quot;DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC2536</a>].  The size parameter
      T, affecting the field lengths, MUST be selected as the minimum
      value that is long enough to accommodate P, G, and Y.  The fields
      MUST be encoded in network byte order, as defined in [<a href="./rfc2536" title="&quot;DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC2536</a>].

   In <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>, the public key encoding process is illustrated using
   pseudo-code.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  Protocol Overview</span>

   The following material is an overview of the HIP protocol operation,
   and does not contain all details of the packet formats or the packet
   processing steps.  Sections <a href="#section-5">5</a> and <a href="#section-6">6</a> describe in more detail the
   packet formats and packet processing steps, respectively, and are
   normative in case of any conflicts with this section.

   The protocol number 139 has been assigned by IANA to the Host
   Identity Protocol.

   The HIP payload (<a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>) header could be carried in every IP
   datagram.  However, since HIP headers are relatively large (40
   bytes), it is desirable to 'compress' the HIP header so that the HIP
   header only occurs in control packets used to establish or change HIP
   association state.  The actual method for header 'compression' and
   for matching data packets with existing HIP associations (if any) is
   defined in separate documents, describing transport formats and
   methods.  All HIP implementations MUST implement, at minimum, the ESP
   transport format for HIP [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>.  Creating a HIP Association</span>

   By definition, the system initiating a HIP exchange is the Initiator,
   and the peer is the Responder.  This distinction is forgotten once
   the base exchange completes, and either party can become the
   Initiator in future communications.

   The HIP base exchange serves to manage the establishment of state
   between an Initiator and a Responder.  The first packet, I1,
   initiates the exchange, and the last three packets, R1, I2, and R2,
   constitute an authenticated Diffie-Hellman [<a href="#ref-DIF76" title="&quot;New Directions in Cryptography&quot;">DIF76</a>] key exchange for
   session key generation.  During the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, a
   piece of keying material is generated.  The HIP association keys are
   drawn from this keying material.  If other cryptographic keys are
   needed, e.g., to be used with ESP, they are expected to be drawn from
   the same keying material.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The Initiator first sends a trigger packet, I1, to the Responder.
   The packet contains only the HIT of the Initiator and possibly the
   HIT of the Responder, if it is known.  Note that in some cases it may
   be possible to replace this trigger packet by some other form of a
   trigger, in which case the protocol starts with the Responder sending
   the R1 packet.

   The second packet, R1, starts the actual exchange.  It contains a
   puzzle -- a cryptographic challenge that the Initiator must solve
   before continuing the exchange.  The level of difficulty of the
   puzzle can be adjusted based on level of trust with the Initiator,
   current load, or other factors.  In addition, the R1 contains the
   initial Diffie-Hellman parameters and a signature, covering part of
   the message.  Some fields are left outside the signature to support
   pre-created R1s.

   In the I2 packet, the Initiator must display the solution to the
   received puzzle.  Without a correct solution, the I2 message is
   discarded.  The I2 also contains a Diffie-Hellman parameter that
   carries needed information for the Responder.  The packet is signed
   by the sender.

   The R2 packet finalizes the base exchange.  The packet is signed.

   The base exchange is illustrated below.  The term "key" refers to the
   Host Identity public key, and "sig" represents a signature using such
   a key.  The packets contain other parameters not shown in this
   figure.

       Initiator                              Responder

                    I1: trigger exchange
                  --------------------------&gt;
                                              select precomputed R1
                    R1: puzzle, D-H, key, sig
                  &lt;-------------------------
    check sig                                 remain stateless
    solve puzzle
                  I2: solution, D-H, {key}, sig
                  --------------------------&gt;
    compute D-H                               check puzzle
                                              check sig
                            R2: sig
                  &lt;--------------------------
    check sig                                 compute D-H






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.1" href="#section-4.1.1">4.1.1</a>.  HIP Puzzle Mechanism</span>

   The purpose of the HIP puzzle mechanism is to protect the Responder
   from a number of denial-of-service threats.  It allows the Responder
   to delay state creation until receiving I2.  Furthermore, the puzzle
   allows the Responder to use a fairly cheap calculation to check that
   the Initiator is "sincere" in the sense that it has churned CPU
   cycles in solving the puzzle.

   The puzzle mechanism has been explicitly designed to give space for
   various implementation options.  It allows a Responder implementation
   to completely delay session-specific state creation until a valid I2
   is received.  In such a case, a correctly formatted I2 can be
   rejected only once the Responder has checked its validity by
   computing one hash function.  On the other hand, the design also
   allows a Responder implementation to keep state about received I1s,
   and match the received I2s against the state, thereby allowing the
   implementation to avoid the computational cost of the hash function.
   The drawback of this latter approach is the requirement of creating
   state.  Finally, it also allows an implementation to use other
   combinations of the space-saving and computation-saving mechanisms.

   The Responder can remain stateless and drop most spoofed I2s because
   puzzle calculation is based on the Initiator's Host Identity Tag.
   The idea is that the Responder has a (perhaps varying) number of pre-
   calculated R1 packets, and it selects one of these based on the
   information carried in I1.  When the Responder then later receives
   I2, it can verify that the puzzle has been solved using the
   Initiator's HIT.  This makes it impractical for the attacker to first
   exchange one I1/R1, and then generate a large number of spoofed I2s
   that seemingly come from different HITs.  The method does not protect
   from an attacker that uses fixed HITs, though.  Against such an
   attacker a viable approach may be to create a piece of local state,
   and remember that the puzzle check has previously failed.  See
   <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> for one possible implementation.  Implementations SHOULD
   include sufficient randomness to the algorithm so that algorithmic
   complexity attacks become impossible [<a href="#ref-CRO03" title="&quot;Denial of Service via Algorithmic Complexity Attacks&quot;">CRO03</a>].

   The Responder can set the puzzle difficulty for Initiator, based on
   its level of trust of the Initiator.  Because the puzzle is not
   included in the signature calculation, the Responder can use pre-
   calculated R1 packets and include the puzzle just before sending the
   R1 to the Initiator.  The Responder SHOULD use heuristics to
   determine when it is under a denial-of-service attack, and set the
   puzzle difficulty value K appropriately; see below.






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.2" href="#section-4.1.2">4.1.2</a>.  Puzzle Exchange</span>

   The Responder starts the puzzle exchange when it receives an I1.  The
   Responder supplies a random number I, and requires the Initiator to
   find a number J.  To select a proper J, the Initiator must create the
   concatenation of I, the HITs of the parties, and J, and take a hash
   over this concatenation using the RHASH algorithm.  The lowest order
   K bits of the result MUST be zeros.  The value K sets the difficulty
   of the puzzle.

   To generate a proper number J, the Initiator will have to generate a
   number of Js until one produces the hash target of zeros.  The
   Initiator SHOULD give up after exceeding the puzzle lifetime in the
   PUZZLE parameter (<a href="#section-5.2.4">Section 5.2.4</a>).  The Responder needs to re-create
   the concatenation of I, the HITs, and the provided J, and compute the
   hash once to prove that the Initiator did its assigned task.

   To prevent precomputation attacks, the Responder MUST select the
   number I in such a way that the Initiator cannot guess it.
   Furthermore, the construction MUST allow the Responder to verify that
   the value was indeed selected by it and not by the Initiator.  See
   <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> for an example on how to implement this.

   Using the Opaque data field in an ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED
   (<a href="#section-5.2.17">Section 5.2.17</a>) or in an ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED parameter
   (<a href="#section-5.2.18">Section 5.2.18</a>), the Responder can include some data in R1 that the
   Initiator must copy unmodified in the corresponding I2 packet.  The
   Responder can generate the Opaque data in various ways; e.g., using
   some secret, the sent I, and possibly other related data.  Using the
   same secret, the received I (from the I2), and the other related data
   (if any), the Receiver can verify that it has itself sent the I to
   the Initiator.  The Responder MUST periodically change such a used
   secret.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the Responder generates a new puzzle and a new
   R1 once every few minutes.  Furthermore, it is RECOMMENDED that the
   Responder remembers an old puzzle at least 2*Lifetime seconds after
   the puzzle has been deprecated.  These time values allow a slower
   Initiator to solve the puzzle while limiting the usability that an
   old, solved puzzle has to an attacker.

   NOTE: The protocol developers explicitly considered whether R1 should
   include a timestamp in order to protect the Initiator from replay
   attacks.  The decision was to NOT include a timestamp.

   NOTE: The protocol developers explicitly considered whether a memory
   bound function should be used for the puzzle instead of a CPU-bound
   function.  The decision was not to use memory-bound functions.  At



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   the time of the decision, the idea of memory-bound functions was
   relatively new and their IPR status were unknown.  Once there is more
   experience about memory-bound functions and once their IPR status is
   better known, it may be reasonable to reconsider this decision.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.3" href="#section-4.1.3">4.1.3</a>.  Authenticated Diffie-Hellman Protocol</span>

   The packets R1, I2, and R2 implement a standard authenticated Diffie-
   Hellman exchange.  The Responder sends one or two public Diffie-
   Hellman keys and its public authentication key, i.e., its Host
   Identity, in R1.  The signature in R1 allows the Initiator to verify
   that the R1 has been once generated by the Responder.  However, since
   it is precomputed and therefore does not cover all of the packet, it
   does not protect from replay attacks.

   When the Initiator receives an R1, it gets one or two public Diffie-
   Hellman values from the Responder.  If there are two values, it
   selects the value corresponding to the strongest supported Group ID
   and computes the Diffie-Hellman session key (Kij).  It creates a HIP
   association using keying material from the session key (see
   <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>), and may use the association to encrypt its public
   authentication key, i.e., Host Identity.  The resulting I2 contains
   the Initiator's Diffie-Hellman key and its (optionally encrypted)
   public authentication key.  The signature in I2 covers all of the
   packet.

   The Responder extracts the Initiator Diffie-Hellman public key from
   the I2, computes the Diffie-Hellman session key, creates a
   corresponding HIP association, and decrypts the Initiator's public
   authentication key.  It can then verify the signature using the
   authentication key.

   The final message, R2, is needed to protect the Initiator from replay
   attacks.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.4" href="#section-4.1.4">4.1.4</a>.  HIP Replay Protection</span>

   The HIP protocol includes the following mechanisms to protect against
   malicious replays.  Responders are protected against replays of I1
   packets by virtue of the stateless response to I1s with presigned R1
   messages.  Initiators are protected against R1 replays by a
   monotonically increasing "R1 generation counter" included in the R1.
   Responders are protected against replays or false I2s by the puzzle
   mechanism (<a href="#section-4.1.1">Section 4.1.1</a> above), and optional use of opaque data.
   Hosts are protected against replays to R2s and UPDATEs by use of a
   less expensive HMAC verification preceding HIP signature
   verification.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The R1 generation counter is a monotonically increasing 64-bit
   counter that may be initialized to any value.  The scope of the
   counter MAY be system-wide but SHOULD be per Host Identity, if there
   is more than one local host identity.  The value of this counter
   SHOULD be kept across system reboots and invocations of the HIP base
   exchange.  This counter indicates the current generation of puzzles.
   Implementations MUST accept puzzles from the current generation and
   MAY accept puzzles from earlier generations.  A system's local
   counter MUST be incremented at least as often as every time old R1s
   cease to be valid, and SHOULD never be decremented, lest the host
   expose its peers to the replay of previously generated, higher
   numbered R1s.  The R1 counter SHOULD NOT roll over.

   A host may receive more than one R1, either due to sending multiple
   I1s (<a href="#section-6.6.1">Section 6.6.1</a>) or due to a replay of an old R1.  When sending
   multiple I1s, an Initiator SHOULD wait for a small amount of time (a
   reasonable time may be 2 * expected RTT) after the first R1 reception
   to allow possibly multiple R1s to arrive, and it SHOULD respond to an
   R1 among the set with the largest R1 generation counter.  If an
   Initiator is processing an R1 or has already sent an I2 (still
   waiting for R2) and it receives another R1 with a larger R1
   generation counter, it MAY elect to restart R1 processing with the
   fresher R1, as if it were the first R1 to arrive.

   Upon conclusion of an active HIP association with another host, the
   R1 generation counter associated with the peer host SHOULD be
   flushed.  A local policy MAY override the default flushing of R1
   counters on a per-HIT basis.  The reason for recommending the
   flushing of this counter is that there may be hosts where the R1
   generation counter (occasionally) decreases; e.g., due to hardware
   failure.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.5" href="#section-4.1.5">4.1.5</a>.  Refusing a HIP Exchange</span>

   A HIP-aware host may choose not to accept a HIP exchange.  If the
   host's policy is to only be an Initiator, it should begin its own HIP
   exchange.  A host MAY choose to have such a policy since only the
   Initiator's HI is protected in the exchange.  There is a risk of a
   race condition if each host's policy is to only be an Initiator, at
   which point the HIP exchange will fail.

   If the host's policy does not permit it to enter into a HIP exchange
   with the Initiator, it should send an ICMP 'Destination Unreachable,
   Administratively Prohibited' message.  A more complex HIP packet is
   not used here as it actually opens up more potential DoS attacks than
   a simple ICMP message.





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.6" href="#section-4.1.6">4.1.6</a>.  HIP Opportunistic Mode</span>

   It is possible to initiate a HIP negotiation even if the Responder's
   HI (and HIT) is unknown.  In this case, the connection initializing
   I1 packet contains NULL (all zeros) as the destination HIT.  This
   kind of connection setup is called opportunistic mode.

   There are both security and API issues involved with the
   opportunistic mode.

   Given that the Responder's HI is not known by the Initiator, there
   must be suitable API calls that allow the Initiator to request,
   directly or indirectly, that the underlying kernel initiate the HIP
   base exchange solely based on locators.  The Responder's HI will be
   tentatively available in the R1 packet, and in an authenticated form
   once the R2 packet has been received and verified.  Hence, it could
   be communicated to the application via new API mechanisms.  However,
   with a backwards-compatible API the application sees only the
   locators used for the initial contact.  Depending on the desired
   semantics of the API, this can raise the following issues:

   o  The actual locators may later change if an UPDATE message is used,
      even if from the API perspective the session still appears to be
      between specific locators.  The locator update is still secure,
      however, and the session is still between the same nodes.

   o  Different sessions between the same locators may result in
      connections to different nodes, if the implementation no longer
      remembers which identifier the peer had in another session.  This
      is possible when the peer's locator has changed for legitimate
      reasons or when an attacker pretends to be a node that has the
      peer's locator.  Therefore, when using opportunistic mode, HIP
      MUST NOT place any expectation that the peer's HI returned in the
      R1 message matches any HI previously seen from that address.

      If the HIP implementation and application do not have the same
      understanding of what constitutes a session, this may even happen
      within the same session.  For instance, an implementation may not
      know when HIP state can be purged for UDP-based applications.

   o  As with all HIP exchanges, the handling of locator-based or
      interface-based policy is unclear for opportunistic mode HIP.  An
      application may make a connection to a specific locator because
      the application has knowledge of the security properties along the
      network to that locator.  If one of the nodes moves and the
      locators are updated, these security properties may not be
      maintained.  Depending on the security policy of the application,
      this may be a problem.  This is an area of ongoing study.  As an



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


      example, there is work to create an API that applications can use
      to specify their security requirements in a similar context
      [<a href="#ref-IPsec-APIs" title="&quot;IPsec Application Programming Interfaces&quot;">IPsec-APIs</a>].

   In addition, the following security considerations apply.  The
   generation counter mechanism will be less efficient in protecting
   against replays of the R1 packet, given that the Responder can choose
   a replay that uses any HI, not just the one given in the I1 packet.

   More importantly, the opportunistic exchange is vulnerable to man-in-
   the-middle attacks, because the Initiator does not have any public
   key information about the peer.  To assess the impacts of this
   vulnerability, we compare it to vulnerabilities in current, non-HIP-
   capable communications.

   An attacker on the path between the two peers can insert itself as a
   man-in-the-middle by providing its own identifier to the Initiator
   and then initiating another HIP session towards the Responder.  For
   this to be possible, the Initiator must employ opportunistic mode,
   and the Responder must be configured to accept a connection from any
   HIP-enabled node.

   An attacker outside the path will be unable to do so, given that it
   cannot respond to the messages in the base exchange.

   These properties are characteristic also of communications in the
   current Internet.  A client contacting a server without employing
   end-to-end security may find itself talking to the server via a man-
   in-the-middle, assuming again that the server is willing to talk to
   anyone.

   If end-to-end security is in place, then the worst that can happen in
   both the opportunistic HIP and normal IP cases is denial-of-service;
   an entity on the path can disrupt communications, but will be unable
   to insert itself as a man-in-the-middle.

   However, once the opportunistic exchange has successfully completed,
   HIP provides integrity protection and confidentiality for the
   communications, and can securely change the locators of the
   endpoints.

   As a result, it is believed that the HIP opportunistic mode is at
   least as secure as current IP.








<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>.  Updating a HIP Association</span>

   A HIP association between two hosts may need to be updated over time.
   Examples include the need to rekey expiring user data security
   associations, add new security associations, or change IP addresses
   associated with hosts.  The UPDATE packet is used for those and other
   similar purposes.  This document only specifies the UPDATE packet
   format and basic processing rules, with mandatory parameters.  The
   actual usage is defined in separate specifications.

   HIP provides a general purpose UPDATE packet, which can carry
   multiple HIP parameters, for updating the HIP state between two
   peers.  The UPDATE mechanism has the following properties:

      UPDATE messages carry a monotonically increasing sequence number
      and are explicitly acknowledged by the peer.  Lost UPDATEs or
      acknowledgments may be recovered via retransmission.  Multiple
      UPDATE messages may be outstanding under certain circumstances.

      UPDATE is protected by both HMAC and HIP_SIGNATURE parameters,
      since processing UPDATE signatures alone is a potential DoS attack
      against intermediate systems.

      UPDATE packets are explicitly acknowledged by the use of an
      acknowledgment parameter that echoes an individual sequence number
      received from the peer.  A single UPDATE packet may contain both a
      sequence number and one or more acknowledgment numbers (i.e.,
      piggybacked acknowledgment(s) for the peer's UPDATE).

   The UPDATE packet is defined in <a href="#section-5.3.5">Section 5.3.5</a>.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>.  Error Processing</span>

   HIP error processing behavior depends on whether or not there exists
   an active HIP association.  In general, if a HIP association exists
   between the sender and receiver of a packet causing an error
   condition, the receiver SHOULD respond with a NOTIFY packet.  On the
   other hand, if there are no existing HIP associations between the
   sender and receiver, or the receiver cannot reasonably determine the
   identity of the sender, the receiver MAY respond with a suitable ICMP
   message; see <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a> for more details.

   The HIP protocol and state machine is designed to recover from one of
   the parties crashing and losing its state.  The following scenarios
   describe the main use cases covered by the design.






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


      No prior state between the two systems.

         The system with data to send is the Initiator.  The process
         follows the standard four-packet base exchange, establishing
         the HIP association.

      The system with data to send has no state with the receiver, but
      the receiver has a residual HIP association.

         The system with data to send is the Initiator.  The Initiator
         acts as in no prior state, sending I1 and getting R1.  When the
         Responder receives a valid I2, the old association is
         'discovered' and deleted, and the new association is
         established.

      The system with data to send has a HIP association, but the
      receiver does not.

         The system sends data on the outbound user data security
         association.  The receiver 'detects' the situation when it
         receives a user data packet that it cannot match to any HIP
         association.  The receiving host MUST discard this packet.

         Optionally, the receiving host MAY send an ICMP packet, with
         the type Parameter Problem, to inform the sender that the HIP
         association does not exist (see <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>), and it MAY
         initiate a new HIP negotiation.  However, responding with these
         optional mechanisms is implementation or policy dependent.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>.  HIP State Machine</span>

   The HIP protocol itself has little state.  In the HIP base exchange,
   there is an Initiator and a Responder.  Once the security
   associations (SAs) are established, this distinction is lost.  If the
   HIP state needs to be re-established, the controlling parameters are
   which peer still has state and which has a datagram to send to its
   peer.  The following state machine attempts to capture these
   processes.

   The state machine is presented in a single system view, representing
   either an Initiator or a Responder.  There is not a complete overlap
   of processing logic here and in the packet definitions.  Both are
   needed to completely implement HIP.

   Implementors must understand that the state machine, as described
   here, is informational.  Specific implementations are free to
   implement the actual functions differently.  <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a> describes the
   packet processing rules in more detail.  This state machine focuses



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   on the HIP I1, R1, I2, and R2 packets only.  Other states may be
   introduced by mechanisms in other specifications (such as mobility
   and multihoming).

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.1" href="#section-4.4.1">4.4.1</a>.  HIP States</span>

   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | State               | Explanation                                 |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | UNASSOCIATED        | State machine start                         |
   |                     |                                             |
   | I1-SENT             | Initiating base exchange                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | I2-SENT             | Waiting to complete base exchange           |
   |                     |                                             |
   | R2-SENT             | Waiting to complete base exchange           |
   |                     |                                             |
   | ESTABLISHED         | HIP association established                 |
   |                     |                                             |
   | CLOSING             | HIP association closing, no data can be     |
   |                     | sent                                        |
   |                     |                                             |
   | CLOSED              | HIP association closed, no data can be sent |
   |                     |                                             |
   | E-FAILED            | HIP exchange failed                         |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

                            Table 1: HIP States























<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.2" href="#section-4.4.2">4.4.2</a>.  HIP State Processes</span>

   System behavior in state UNASSOCIATED, Table 2.

   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Trigger             | Action                                      |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | User data to send,  | Send I1 and go to I1-SENT                   |
   | requiring a new HIP |                                             |
   | association         |                                             |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I1          | Send R1 and stay at UNASSOCIATED            |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I2, process | If successful, send R2 and go to R2-SENT    |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at UNASSOCIATED               |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive user data   | Optionally send ICMP as defined in          |
   | for unknown HIP     | <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a> and stay at UNASSOCIATED        |
   | association         |                                             |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive CLOSE       | Optionally send ICMP Parameter Problem and  |
   |                     | stay at UNASSOCIATED                        |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive ANYOTHER    | Drop and stay at UNASSOCIATED               |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

                    Table 2: UNASSOCIATED - Start state























<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   System behavior in state I1-SENT, Table 3.

   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Trigger             | Action                                      |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Receive I1          | If the local HIT is smaller than the peer   |
   |                     | HIT, drop I1 and stay at I1-SENT            |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If the local HIT is greater than the peer   |
   |                     | HIT, send R1 and stay at I1_SENT            |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I2, process | If successful, send R2 and go to R2-SENT    |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at I1-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R1, process | If successful, send I2 and go to I2-SENT    |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at I1-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive ANYOTHER    | Drop and stay at I1-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Timeout, increment  | If counter is less than I1_RETRIES_MAX,     |
   | timeout counter     | send I1 and stay at I1-SENT                 |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If counter is greater than I1_RETRIES_MAX,  |
   |                     | go to E-FAILED                              |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

                     Table 3: I1-SENT - Initiating HIP






















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   System behavior in state I2-SENT, Table 4.

   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Trigger             | Action                                      |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Receive I1          | Send R1 and stay at I2-SENT                 |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R1, process | If successful, send I2 and cycle at I2-SENT |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at I2-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I2, process | If successful and local HIT is smaller than |
   |                     | the peer HIT, drop I2 and stay at I2-SENT   |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If successful and local HIT is greater than |
   |                     | the peer HIT, send R2 and go to R2-SENT     |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at I2-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R2, process | If successful, go to ESTABLISHED            |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at I2-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive ANYOTHER    | Drop and stay at I2-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Timeout, increment  | If counter is less than I2_RETRIES_MAX,     |
   | timeout counter     | send I2 and stay at I2-SENT                 |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If counter is greater than I2_RETRIES_MAX,  |
   |                     | go to E-FAILED                              |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

                 Table 4: I2-SENT - Waiting to finish HIP


















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   System behavior in state R2-SENT, Table 5.

   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Trigger             | Action                                      |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Receive I1          | Send R1 and stay at R2-SENT                 |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I2, process | If successful, send R2 and cycle at R2-SENT |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at R2-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R1          | Drop and stay at R2-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R2          | Drop and stay at R2-SENT                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive data or     | Move to ESTABLISHED                         |
   | UPDATE              |                                             |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Exchange Complete   | Move to ESTABLISHED                         |
   | Timeout             |                                             |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

                 Table 5: R2-SENT - Waiting to finish HIP




























<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   System behavior in state ESTABLISHED, Table 6.

   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Trigger             | Action                                      |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Receive I1          | Send R1 and stay at ESTABLISHED             |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I2, process | If successful, send R2, drop old HIP        |
   | with puzzle and     | association, establish a new HIP            |
   | possible Opaque     | association, go to R2-SENT                  |
   | data verification   |                                             |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at ESTABLISHED                |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R1          | Drop and stay at ESTABLISHED                |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R2          | Drop and stay at ESTABLISHED                |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive user data   | Process and stay at ESTABLISHED             |
   | for HIP association |                                             |
   |                     |                                             |
   | No packet           | Send CLOSE and go to CLOSING                |
   | sent/received       |                                             |
   | during UAL minutes  |                                             |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive CLOSE,      | If successful, send CLOSE_ACK and go to     |
   | process             | CLOSED                                      |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at ESTABLISHED                |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

            Table 6: ESTABLISHED - HIP association established



















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   System behavior in state CLOSING, Table 7.

   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Trigger             | Action                                      |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | User data to send,  | Send I1 and stay at CLOSING                 |
   | requires the        |                                             |
   | creation of another |                                             |
   | incarnation of the  |                                             |
   | HIP association     |                                             |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I1          | Send R1 and stay at CLOSING                 |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I2, process | If successful, send R2 and go to R2-SENT    |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at CLOSING                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R1, process | If successful, send I2 and go to I2-SENT    |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at CLOSING                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive CLOSE,      | If successful, send CLOSE_ACK, discard      |
   | process             | state and go to CLOSED                      |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at CLOSING                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive CLOSE_ACK,  | If successful, discard state and go to      |
   | process             | UNASSOCIATED                                |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at CLOSING                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive ANYOTHER    | Drop and stay at CLOSING                    |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Timeout, increment  | If timeout sum is less than UAL+MSL         |
   | timeout sum, reset  | minutes, retransmit CLOSE and stay at       |
   | timer               | CLOSING                                     |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If timeout sum is greater than UAL+MSL      |
   |                     | minutes, go to UNASSOCIATED                 |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

   Table 7: CLOSING - HIP association has not been used for UAL minutes









<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   System behavior in state CLOSED, Table 8.

   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Trigger             | Action                                      |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | Datagram to send,   | Send I1, and stay at CLOSED                 |
   | requires the        |                                             |
   | creation of another |                                             |
   | incarnation of the  |                                             |
   | HIP association     |                                             |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I1          | Send R1 and stay at CLOSED                  |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive I2, process | If successful, send R2 and go to R2-SENT    |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at CLOSED                     |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive R1, process | If successful, send I2 and go to I2-SENT    |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at CLOSED                     |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive CLOSE,      | If successful, send CLOSE_ACK, stay at      |
   | process             | CLOSED                                      |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at CLOSED                     |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive CLOSE_ACK,  | If successful, discard state and go to      |
   | process             | UNASSOCIATED                                |
   |                     |                                             |
   |                     | If fail, stay at CLOSED                     |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Receive ANYOTHER    | Drop and stay at CLOSED                     |
   |                     |                                             |
   | Timeout (UAL+2MSL)  | Discard state, and go to UNASSOCIATED       |
   +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+

    Table 8: CLOSED - CLOSE_ACK sent, resending CLOSE_ACK if necessary














<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   System behavior in state E-FAILED, Table 9.

   +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
   | Trigger                 | Action                                  |
   +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
   | Wait for                | Go to UNASSOCIATED.  Re-negotiation is  |
   | implementation-specific | possible after moving to UNASSOCIATED   |
   | time                    | state.                                  |
   +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

     Table 9: E-FAILED - HIP failed to establish association with peer

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.3" href="#section-4.4.3">4.4.3</a>.  Simplified HIP State Diagram</span>

   The following diagram shows the major state transitions.  Transitions
   based on received packets implicitly assume that the packets are
   successfully authenticated or processed.


































<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


                                +-+        +---------------------------+
           I1 received, send R1 | |        |                           |
                                | v        v                           |
            Datagram to send  +--------------+  I2 received, send R2   |
              +---------------| UNASSOCIATED |---------------+         |
      Send I1 |               +--------------+               |         |
              v                                              |         |
         +---------+  I2 received, send R2                   |         |
   +----&gt;| I1-SENT |---------------------------------------+ |         |
   |     +---------+                                       | |         |
   |          |                 +------------------------+ | |         |
   |          | R1 received,    | I2 received, send R2   | | |         |
   |          v send I2         |                        v v v         |
   |     +---------+            |                   +---------+        |
   |  +-&gt;| I2-SENT |------------+                   | R2-SENT |&lt;----+  |
   |  |  +---------+                                +---------+     |  |
   |  |          |                                     |            |  |
   |  |          |                                 data|            |  |
   |  |receive   |                                   or|            |  |
   |  |R1, send  |                           EC timeout| receive I2,|  |
   |  |I2        |R2 received +--------------+         |     send R2|  |
   |  |          +-----------&gt;| ESTABLISHED  |&lt;-------+|            |  |
   |  |                       +--------------+                      |  |
   |  |                         |    |     |  receive I2, send R2   |  |
   |  |        recv+------------+    |     +------------------------+  |
   |  |      CLOSE,|                 |                              |  |
   |  |        send|   No packet sent|                              |  |
   |  |   CLOSE_ACK|   /received for |                   timeout    |  |
   |  |            |   UAL min, send |    +---------+&lt;-+ (UAL+MSL)  |  |
   |  |            |           CLOSE +---&gt;| CLOSING |--+ retransmit |  |
   |  |            |                      +---------+    CLOSE      |  |
   +--|------------|----------------------+ | |  | |                |  |
      +------------|------------------------+ |  | +----------------+  |
      |            |              +-----------+  +------------------|--+
      |            +------------+ | receive CLOSE,   CLOSE_ACK      |  |
      |                         | | send CLOSE_ACK   received or    |  |
      |                         | |                  timeout        |  |
      |                         | |                  (UAL+MSL)      |  |
      |                         v v                                 |  |
      |                        +--------+  receive I2, send R2      |  |
      +------------------------| CLOSED |---------------------------+  |
                               +--------+       /----------------------+
                                 ^ |   \-------/  timeout (UAL+2MSL),
                                 +-+              move to UNASSOCIATED
                  CLOSE received, send CLOSE_ACK






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>.  User Data Considerations</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5.1" href="#section-4.5.1">4.5.1</a>.  TCP and UDP Pseudo-Header Computation for User Data</span>

   When computing TCP and UDP checksums on user data packets that flow
   through sockets bound to HITs, the IPv6 pseudo-header format
   [<a href="./rfc2460" title="&quot;Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification&quot;">RFC2460</a>] MUST be used, even if the actual addresses on the packet
   are IPv4 addresses.  Additionally, the HITs MUST be used in the place
   of the IPv6 addresses in the IPv6 pseudo-header.  Note that the
   pseudo-header for actual HIP payloads is computed differently; see
   <a href="#section-5.1.1">Section 5.1.1</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5.2" href="#section-4.5.2">4.5.2</a>.  Sending Data on HIP Packets</span>

   A future version of this document may define how to include user data
   on various HIP packets.  However, currently the HIP header is a
   terminal header, and not followed by any other headers.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5.3" href="#section-4.5.3">4.5.3</a>.  Transport Formats</span>

   The actual data transmission format, used for user data after the HIP
   base exchange, is not defined in this document.  Such transport
   formats and methods are described in separate specifications.  All
   HIP implementations MUST implement, at minimum, the ESP transport
   format for HIP [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>].

   When new transport formats are defined, they get the type value from
   the HIP Transform type value space 2048-4095.  The order in which the
   transport formats are presented in the R1 packet, is the preferred
   order.  The last of the transport formats MUST be ESP transport
   format, represented by the ESP_TRANSFORM parameter.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5.4" href="#section-4.5.4">4.5.4</a>.  Reboot and SA Timeout Restart of HIP</span>

   Simulating a loss of state is a potential DoS attack.  The following
   process has been crafted to manage state recovery without presenting
   a DoS opportunity.

   If a host reboots or the HIP association times out, it has lost its
   HIP state.  If the host that lost state has a datagram to send to the
   peer, it simply restarts the HIP base exchange.  After the base
   exchange has completed, the Initiator can create a new SA and start
   sending data.  The peer does not reset its state until it receives a
   valid I2 HIP packet.

   If a system receives a user data packet that cannot be matched to any
   existing HIP association, it is possible that it has lost the state
   and its peer has not.  It MAY send an ICMP packet with the Parameter



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   Problem type, and with the pointer pointing to the referred HIP-
   related association information.  Reacting to such traffic depends on
   the implementation and the environment where the implementation is
   used.

   If the host, that apparently has lost its state, decides to restart
   the HIP base exchange, it sends an I1 packet to the peer.  After the
   base exchange has been completed successfully, the Initiator can
   create a new HIP association and the peer drops its old SA and
   creates a new one.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>.  Certificate Distribution</span>

   This document does not define how to use certificates or how to
   transfer them between hosts.  These functions are expected to be
   defined in a future specification.  A parameter type value, meant to
   be used for carrying certificates, is reserved, though: CERT, Type
   768; see <a href="#section-5.2">Section 5.2</a>.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>.  Packet Formats</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>.  Payload Format</span>

   All HIP packets start with a fixed header.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Next Header   | Header Length |0| Packet Type |  VER. | RES.|1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Checksum             |           Controls            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Sender's Host Identity Tag (HIT)               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Receiver's Host Identity Tag (HIT)              |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   /                        HIP Parameters                         /
   /                                                               /
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The HIP header is logically an IPv6 extension header.  However, this
   document does not describe processing for Next Header values other
   than decimal 59, IPPROTO_NONE, the IPv6 'no next header' value.
   Future documents MAY do so.  However, current implementations MUST
   ignore trailing data if an unimplemented Next Header value is
   received.

   The Header Length field contains the length of the HIP Header and HIP
   parameters in 8-byte units, excluding the first 8 bytes.  Since all
   HIP headers MUST contain the sender's and receiver's HIT fields, the
   minimum value for this field is 4, and conversely, the maximum length
   of the HIP Parameters field is (255*8)-32 = 2008 bytes.  Note: this
   sets an additional limit for sizes of parameters included in the
   Parameters field, independent of the individual parameter maximum
   lengths.

   The Packet Type indicates the HIP packet type.  The individual packet
   types are defined in the relevant sections.  If a HIP host receives a
   HIP packet that contains an unknown packet type, it MUST drop the
   packet.

   The HIP Version is four bits.  The current version is 1.  The version
   number is expected to be incremented only if there are incompatible
   changes to the protocol.  Most extensions can be handled by defining
   new packet types, new parameter types, or new controls.

   The following three bits are reserved for future use.  They MUST be
   zero when sent, and they SHOULD be ignored when handling a received
   packet.

   The two fixed bits in the header are reserved for potential SHIM6
   compatibility [<a href="#ref-SHIM6-PROTO" title="&quot;Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6&quot;">SHIM6-PROTO</a>].  For implementations adhering (only) to
   this specification, they MUST be set as shown when sending and MUST
   be ignored when receiving.  This is to ensure optimal forward
   compatibility.  Note that for implementations that implement other
   compatible specifications in addition to this specification, the
   corresponding rules may well be different.  For example, in the case
   that the forthcoming SHIM6 protocol happens to be compatible with
   this specification, an implementation that implements both this
   specification and the SHIM6 protocol may need to check these bits in
   order to determine how to handle the packet.

   The HIT fields are always 128 bits (16 bytes) long.








<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.1" href="#section-5.1.1">5.1.1</a>.  Checksum</span>

   Since the checksum covers the source and destination addresses in the
   IP header, it must be recomputed on HIP-aware NAT devices.

   If IPv6 is used to carry the HIP packet, the pseudo-header [<a href="./rfc2460" title="&quot;Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification&quot;">RFC2460</a>]
   contains the source and destination IPv6 addresses, HIP packet length
   in the pseudo-header length field, a zero field, and the HIP protocol
   number (see <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>) in the Next Header field.  The length field is
   in bytes and can be calculated from the HIP header length field: (HIP
   Header Length + 1) * 8.

   In case of using IPv4, the IPv4 UDP pseudo-header format [<a href="./rfc0768" title="&quot;User Datagram Protocol&quot;">RFC0768</a>] is
   used.  In the pseudo-header, the source and destination addresses are
   those used in the IP header, the zero field is obviously zero, the
   protocol is the HIP protocol number (see <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>), and the length
   is calculated as in the IPv6 case.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.2" href="#section-5.1.2">5.1.2</a>.  HIP Controls</span>

   The HIP Controls section conveys information about the structure of
   the packet and capabilities of the host.

   The following fields have been defined:

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |A|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   A - Anonymous:   If this is set, the sender's HI in this packet is
      anonymous, i.e., one not listed in a directory.  Anonymous HIs
      SHOULD NOT be stored.  This control is set in packets R1 and/or
      I2.  The peer receiving an anonymous HI may choose to refuse it.

   The rest of the fields are reserved for future use and MUST be set to
   zero on sent packets and ignored on received packets.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.3" href="#section-5.1.3">5.1.3</a>.  HIP Fragmentation Support</span>

   A HIP implementation must support IP fragmentation/reassembly.
   Fragment reassembly MUST be implemented in both IPv4 and IPv6, but
   fragment generation is REQUIRED to be implemented in IPv4 (IPv4
   stacks and networks will usually do this by default) and RECOMMENDED
   to be implemented in IPv6.  In IPv6 networks, the minimum MTU is
   larger, 1280 bytes, than in IPv4 networks.  The larger MTU size is
   usually sufficient for most HIP packets, and therefore fragment





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   generation may not be needed.  If a host expects to send HIP packets
   that are larger than the minimum IPv6 MTU, it MUST implement fragment
   generation even for IPv6.

   In IPv4 networks, HIP packets may encounter low MTUs along their
   routed path.  Since HIP does not provide a mechanism to use multiple
   IP datagrams for a single HIP packet, support for path MTU discovery
   does not bring any value to HIP in IPv4 networks.  HIP-aware NAT
   devices MUST perform any IPv4 reassembly/fragmentation.

   All HIP implementations have to be careful while employing a
   reassembly algorithm so that the algorithm is sufficiently resistant
   to DoS attacks.

   Because certificate chains can cause the packet to be fragmented and
   fragmentation can open implementation to denial-of-service attacks
   [<a href="#ref-KAU03" title="&quot;DoS protection for UDP-based protocols&quot;">KAU03</a>], it is strongly recommended that the separate document
   specifying the certificate usage in the HIP Base Exchange defines the
   usage of "Hash and URL" formats rather than including certificates in
   exchanges.  With this, most problems related to DoS attacks with
   fragmentation can be avoided.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>.  HIP Parameters</span>

   The HIP Parameters are used to carry the public key associated with
   the sender's HIT, together with related security and other
   information.  They consist of ordered parameters, encoded in TLV
   format.

   The following parameter types are currently defined.





















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 34]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-35" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   +------------------------+-------+----------+-----------------------+
   | TLV                    | Type  | Length   | Data                  |
   +------------------------+-------+----------+-----------------------+
   | R1_COUNTER             | 128   | 12       | System Boot Counter   |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | PUZZLE                 | 257   | 12       | K and Random #I       |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | SOLUTION               | 321   | 20       | K, Random #I and      |
   |                        |       |          | puzzle solution J     |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | SEQ                    | 385   | 4        | Update packet ID      |
   |                        |       |          | number                |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | ACK                    | 449   | variable | Update packet ID      |
   |                        |       |          | number                |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | DIFFIE_HELLMAN         | 513   | variable | public key            |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | HIP_TRANSFORM          | 577   | variable | HIP Encryption and    |
   |                        |       |          | Integrity Transform   |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | ENCRYPTED              | 641   | variable | Encrypted part of I2  |
   |                        |       |          | packet                |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | HOST_ID                | 705   | variable | Host Identity with    |
   |                        |       |          | Fully-Qualified       |
   |                        |       |          | Domain FQDN (Name) or |
   |                        |       |          | Network Access        |
   |                        |       |          | Identifier (NAI)      |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | CERT                   | 768   | variable | HI Certificate; used  |
   |                        |       |          | to transfer           |
   |                        |       |          | certificates.  Usage  |
   |                        |       |          | is not currently      |
   |                        |       |          | defined, but it will  |
   |                        |       |          | be specified in a     |
   |                        |       |          | separate document     |
   |                        |       |          | once needed.          |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | NOTIFICATION           | 832   | variable | Informational data    |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED    | 897   | variable | Opaque data to be     |
   |                        |       |          | echoed back; under    |
   |                        |       |          | signature             |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED   | 961   | variable | Opaque data echoed    |
   |                        |       |          | back; under signature |
   |                        |       |          |                       |



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 35]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-36" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   | HMAC                   | 61505 | variable | HMAC-based message    |
   |                        |       |          | authentication code,  |
   |                        |       |          | with key material     |
   |                        |       |          | from HIP_TRANSFORM    |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | HMAC_2                 | 61569 | variable | HMAC based message    |
   |                        |       |          | authentication code,  |
   |                        |       |          | with key material     |
   |                        |       |          | from HIP_TRANSFORM.   |
   |                        |       |          | Compared to HMAC, the |
   |                        |       |          | HOST_ID parameter is  |
   |                        |       |          | included in HMAC_2    |
   |                        |       |          | calculation.          |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | HIP_SIGNATURE_2        | 61633 | variable | Signature of the R1   |
   |                        |       |          | packet                |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | HIP_SIGNATURE          | 61697 | variable | Signature of the      |
   |                        |       |          | packet                |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED  | 63661 | variable | Opaque data to be     |
   |                        |       |          | echoed back; after    |
   |                        |       |          | signature             |
   |                        |       |          |                       |
   | ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED | 63425 | variable | Opaque data echoed    |
   |                        |       |          | back; after signature |
   +------------------------+-------+----------+-----------------------+

   Because the ordering (from lowest to highest) of HIP parameters is
   strictly enforced (see <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>), the parameter type values for
   existing parameters have been spaced to allow for future protocol
   extensions.  Parameters numbered between 0-1023 are used in HIP
   handshake and update procedures and are covered by signatures.
   Parameters numbered between 1024-2047 are reserved.  Parameters
   numbered between 2048-4095 are used for parameters related to HIP
   transform types.  Parameters numbered between 4096 and (2^16 - 2^12)
   61439 are reserved.  Parameters numbered between 61440-62463 are used
   for signatures and signed MACs.  Parameters numbered between 62464-
   63487 are used for parameters that fall outside of the signed area of
   the packet.  Parameters numbered between 63488-64511 are used for
   rendezvous and other relaying services.  Parameters numbered between
   64512-65535 are reserved.









<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 36]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-37" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.1" href="#section-5.2.1">5.2.1</a>.  TLV Format</span>

   The TLV-encoded parameters are described in the following
   subsections.  The type-field value also describes the order of these
   fields in the packet, except for type values from 2048 to 4095 which
   are reserved for new transport forms.  The parameters MUST be
   included in the packet such that their types form an increasing
   order.  If the parameter can exist multiple times in the packet, the
   type value may be the same in consecutive parameters.  If the order
   does not follow this rule, the packet is considered to be malformed
   and it MUST be discarded.

   Parameters using type values from 2048 up to 4095 are transport
   formats.  Currently, one transport format is defined: the ESP
   transport format [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>].  The order of these parameters does not
   follow the order of their type value, but they are put in the packet
   in order of preference.  The first of the transport formats it the
   most preferred, and so on.

   All of the TLV parameters have a length (including Type and Length
   fields), which is a multiple of 8 bytes.  When needed, padding MUST
   be added to the end of the parameter so that the total length becomes
   a multiple of 8 bytes.  This rule ensures proper alignment of data.
   Any added padding bytes MUST be zeroed by the sender, and their
   values SHOULD NOT be checked by the receiver.

   Consequently, the Length field indicates the length of the Contents
   field (in bytes).  The total length of the TLV parameter (including
   Type, Length, Contents, and Padding) is related to the Length field
   according to the following formula:

   Total Length = 11 + Length - (Length + 3) % 8;

   where % is the modulo operator

















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 37]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-38" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


       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            |C|             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      /                          Contents                             /
      /                                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                               |    Padding    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type         Type code for the parameter.  16 bits long, C-bit
                   being part of the Type code.
        C          Critical.  One if this parameter is critical, and
                   MUST be recognized by the recipient, zero otherwise.
                   The C bit is considered to be a part of the Type
                   field.  Consequently, critical parameters are always
                   odd and non-critical ones have an even value.
      Length       Length of the Contents, in bytes.
      Contents     Parameter specific, defined by Type
      Padding      Padding, 0-7 bytes, added if needed

   Critical parameters MUST be recognized by the recipient.  If a
   recipient encounters a critical parameter that it does not recognize,
   it MUST NOT process the packet any further.  It MAY send an ICMP or
   NOTIFY, as defined in <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>.

   Non-critical parameters MAY be safely ignored.  If a recipient
   encounters a non-critical parameter that it does not recognize, it
   SHOULD proceed as if the parameter was not present in the received
   packet.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.2" href="#section-5.2.2">5.2.2</a>.  Defining New Parameters</span>

   Future specifications may define new parameters as needed.  When
   defining new parameters, care must be taken to ensure that the
   parameter type values are appropriate and leave suitable space for
   other future extensions.  One must remember that the parameters MUST
   always be arranged in increasing order by Type code, thereby limiting
   the order of parameters (see <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>).

   The following rules must be followed when defining new parameters.

   1.  The low-order bit C of the Type code is used to distinguish
       between critical and non-critical parameters.






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 38]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-39" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   2.  A new parameter may be critical only if an old recipient ignoring
       it would cause security problems.  In general, new parameters
       SHOULD be defined as non-critical, and expect a reply from the
       recipient.

   3.  If a system implements a new critical parameter, it MUST provide
       the ability to set the associated feature off, such that the
       critical parameter is not sent at all.  The configuration option
       must be well documented.  Implementations operating in a mode
       adhering to this specification MUST disable the sending of new
       critical parameters.  In other words, the management interface
       MUST allow vanilla standards-only mode as a default configuration
       setting, and MAY allow new critical payloads to be configured on
       (and off).

   4.  See <a href="#section-9">Section 9</a> for allocation rules regarding Type codes.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.3" href="#section-5.2.3">5.2.3</a>.  R1_COUNTER</span>

      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, 4 bytes                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                R1 generation counter, 8 bytes                 |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           128
      Length         12
      R1 generation
        counter      The current generation of valid puzzles


   The R1_COUNTER parameter contains a 64-bit unsigned integer in
   network-byte order, indicating the current generation of valid
   puzzles.  The sender is supposed to increment this counter
   periodically.  It is RECOMMENDED that the counter value is
   incremented at least as often as old PUZZLE values are deprecated so
   that SOLUTIONs to them are no longer accepted.

   The R1_COUNTER parameter is optional.  It SHOULD be included in the
   R1 (in which case, it is covered by the signature), and if present in
   the R1, it MAY be echoed (including the Reserved field verbatim) by
   the Initiator in the I2.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 39]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-40" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.4" href="#section-5.2.4">5.2.4</a>.  PUZZLE</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  K, 1 byte    |    Lifetime   |        Opaque, 2 bytes        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Random #I, 8 bytes                       |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           257
      Length         12
      K              K is the number of verified bits
      Lifetime       puzzle lifetime 2^(value-32) seconds
      Opaque         data set by the Responder, indexing the puzzle
      Random #I      random number


   Random #I is represented as a 64-bit integer, K and Lifetime as 8-bit
   integers, all in network byte order.

   The PUZZLE parameter contains the puzzle difficulty K and a 64-bit
   puzzle random integer #I.  The Puzzle Lifetime indicates the time
   during which the puzzle solution is valid, and sets a time limit that
   should not be exceeded by the Initiator while it attempts to solve
   the puzzle.  The lifetime is indicated as a power of 2 using the
   formula 2^(Lifetime-32) seconds.  A puzzle MAY be augmented with an
   ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED or an ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED parameter included in
   the R1; the contents of the echo request are then echoed back in the
   ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED or in the ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED, allowing the
   Responder to use the included information as a part of its puzzle
   processing.

   The Opaque and Random #I field are not covered by the HIP_SIGNATURE_2
   parameter.













<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 40]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-41" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.5" href="#section-5.2.5">5.2.5</a>.  SOLUTION</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | K, 1 byte     |   Reserved    |        Opaque, 2 bytes        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Random #I, 8 bytes                       |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Puzzle solution #J, 8 bytes                   |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type               321
      Length             20
      K                  K is the number of verified bits
      Reserved           zero when sent, ignored when received
      Opaque             copied unmodified from the received PUZZLE
                         parameter
      Random #I          random number
      Puzzle solution #J random number

   Random #I and Random #J are represented as 64-bit integers, K as an
   8-bit integer, all in network byte order.

   The SOLUTION parameter contains a solution to a puzzle.  It also
   echoes back the random difficulty K, the Opaque field, and the puzzle
   integer #I.




















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 41]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-42" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.6" href="#section-5.2.6">5.2.6</a>.  DIFFIE_HELLMAN</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Group ID    |      Public Value Length      | Public Value  /
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      /                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Group ID    |      Public Value Length      | Public Value  /
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      /                               |            padding            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           513
      Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                     padding
      Group ID       defines values for p and g
      Public Value   length of the following Public Value in octets
        Length
      Public Value   the sender's public Diffie-Hellman key

   The following Group IDs have been defined:

      Group                            Value
      Reserved                         0
      384-bit group                    1
      OAKLEY well-known group 1        2
      1536-bit MODP group              3
      3072-bit MODP group              4
      6144-bit MODP group              5
      8192-bit MODP group              6

   The MODP Diffie-Hellman groups are defined in [<a href="./rfc3526" title="&quot;More Modular Exponential (MODP) Diffie-Hellman groups for Internet Key Exchange (IKE)&quot;">RFC3526</a>].  The OAKLEY
   well-known group 1 is defined in <a href="#appendix-E">Appendix E</a>.

   The sender can include at most two different Diffie-Hellman public
   values in the DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter.  This gives the possibility,
   e.g., for a server to provide a weaker encryption possibility for a
   PDA host that is not powerful enough.  It is RECOMMENDED that the
   Initiator, receiving more than one public value, selects the stronger
   one, if it supports it.

   A HIP implementation MUST implement Group IDs 1 and 3.  The 384-bit
   group can be used when lower security is enough (e.g., web surfing)
   and when the equipment is not powerful enough (e.g., some PDAs).  It



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 42]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-43" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   is REQUIRED that the default configuration allows Group ID 1 usage,
   but it is RECOMMENDED that applications that need stronger security
   turn Group ID 1 support off.  Equipment powerful enough SHOULD
   implement also Group ID 5.  The 384-bit group is defined in
   <a href="#appendix-D">Appendix D</a>.

   To avoid unnecessary failures during the base exchange, the rest of
   the groups SHOULD be implemented in hosts where resources are
   adequate.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.7" href="#section-5.2.7">5.2.7</a>.  HIP_TRANSFORM</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Suite ID #1        |          Suite ID #2          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Suite ID #n        |             Padding           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           577
      Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                     padding
      Suite ID       defines the HIP Suite to be used

   The following Suite IDs are defined ([<a href="./rfc4307" title="&quot;Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)&quot;">RFC4307</a>],[<a href="./rfc2451" title="&quot;The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms&quot;">RFC2451</a>]):

         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-ENCRYPT with HMAC-SHA1       5
         NULL-ENCRYPT with HMAC-MD5        6

   The sender of a HIP_TRANSFORM parameter MUST make sure that there are
   no more than six (6) HIP Suite IDs in one HIP_TRANSFORM parameter.
   Conversely, a recipient MUST be prepared to handle received transport
   parameters that contain more than six Suite IDs by accepting the
   first six Suite IDs and dropping the rest.  The limited number of
   transforms sets the maximum size of HIP_TRANSFORM parameter.  As the
   default configuration, the HIP_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.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 43]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-44" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The Responder lists supported and desired Suite IDs in order of
   preference in the R1, up to the maximum of six Suite IDs.  The
   Initiator MUST choose only one of the corresponding Suite IDs.  That
   Suite ID will be used for generating the I2.

   Mandatory implementations: AES-CBC with HMAC-SHA1 and NULL-ENCRYPTION
   with HMAC-SHA1.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.8" href="#section-5.2.8">5.2.8</a>.  HOST_ID</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          HI Length            |DI-type|      DI Length        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Host Identity                         /
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      /                               |         Domain Identifier     /
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      /                                               |    Padding    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type              705
      Length            length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                        Padding
      HI Length         length of the Host Identity in octets
      DI-type           type of the following Domain Identifier field
      DI Length         length of the FQDN or NAI in octets
      Host Identity     actual Host Identity
      Domain Identifier the identifier of the sender

   The Host Identity is represented in <a href="./rfc4034">RFC 4034</a> [<a href="./rfc4034" title="&quot;Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions&quot;">RFC4034</a>] format.  The
   algorithms used in RDATA format are the following:

         Algorithms       Values

         RESERVED         0
         DSA              3 [<a href="./rfc2536" title="&quot;DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC2536</a>] (RECOMMENDED)
         RSA/SHA1         5 [<a href="./rfc3110" title="&quot;RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC3110</a>] (REQUIRED)

   The following DI-types have been defined:

          Type                    Value
          none included           0
          FQDN                    1
          NAI                     2



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 44]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-45" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


          FQDN            Fully Qualified Domain Name, in binary format.
          NAI             Network Access Identifier

   The format for the FQDN is defined in <a href="./rfc1035">RFC 1035</a> <a href="./rfc1035#section-3.1">[RFC1035] Section&nbsp;3.1</a>.
   The format for NAI is defined in [<a href="./rfc4282" title="&quot;The Network Access Identifier&quot;">RFC4282</a>]

   If there is no Domain Identifier, i.e., the DI-type field is zero,
   the DI Length field is set to zero as well.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.9" href="#section-5.2.9">5.2.9</a>.  HMAC</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                             HMAC                              |
      /                                                               /
      /                               +-------------------------------+
      |                               |            Padding            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           61505
      Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                     Padding
      HMAC           HMAC computed over the HIP packet, excluding the
                     HMAC parameter and any following parameters, such
                     as HIP_SIGNATURE, HIP_SIGNATURE_2,
                     ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED, or ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED.
                     The checksum field MUST be set to zero and the HIP
                     header length in the HIP common header MUST be
                     calculated not to cover any excluded parameters
                     when the HMAC is calculated.  The size of the
                     HMAC is the natural size of the hash computation
                     output depending on the used hash function.

   The HMAC calculation and verification process is presented in
   <a href="#section-6.4.1">Section 6.4.1</a>.












<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 45]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-46" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.10" href="#section-5.2.10">5.2.10</a>.  HMAC_2</span>

   The parameter structure is the same as in <a href="#section-5.2.9">Section 5.2.9</a>.  The fields
   are:

      Type           61569
      Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                     Padding
      HMAC           HMAC computed over the HIP packet, excluding the
                     HMAC parameter and any following parameters such
                     as HIP_SIGNATURE, HIP_SIGNATURE_2,
                     ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED, or ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED,
                     and including an additional sender's HOST_ID
                     parameter during the HMAC calculation.  The
                     checksum field MUST be set to zero and the HIP
                     header length in the HIP common header MUST be
                     calculated not to cover any excluded parameters
                     when the HMAC is calculated.  The size of the
                     HMAC is the natural size of the hash computation
                     output depending on the used hash function.

   The HMAC calculation and verification process is presented in
   <a href="#section-6.4.1">Section 6.4.1</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.11" href="#section-5.2.11">5.2.11</a>.  HIP_SIGNATURE</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    SIG alg    |                  Signature                    /
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      /                               |             Padding           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           61697
      Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                     Padding
      SIG alg        signature algorithm
      Signature      the signature is calculated over the HIP packet,
                     excluding the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter and any
                     parameters that follow the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter.
                     The checksum field MUST be set to zero, and the HIP
                     header length in the HIP common header MUST be
                     calculated only to the beginning of the
                     HIP_SIGNATURE parameter when the signature is
                     calculated.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 46]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-47" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The signature algorithms are defined in <a href="#section-5.2.8">Section 5.2.8</a>.  The signature
   in the Signature field is encoded using the proper method depending
   on the signature algorithm (e.g., according to [<a href="./rfc3110" title="&quot;RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC3110</a>] in case of
   RSA/SHA1, or according to [<a href="./rfc2536" title="&quot;DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)&quot;">RFC2536</a>] in case of DSA).

   The HIP_SIGNATURE calculation and verification process is presented
   in <a href="#section-6.4.2">Section 6.4.2</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.12" href="#section-5.2.12">5.2.12</a>.  HIP_SIGNATURE_2</span>

   The parameter structure is the same as in <a href="#section-5.2.11">Section 5.2.11</a>.  The fields
   are:

   Type           61633
   Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                  Padding
   SIG alg        signature algorithm
   Signature      Within the R1 packet that contains the HIP_SIGNATURE_2
                  parameter, the Initiator's HIT, the checksum
                  field, and the Opaque and Random #I fields in the
                  PUZZLE parameter MUST be set to zero while
                  computing the HIP_SIGNATURE_2 signature.  Further,
                  the HIP packet length in the HIP header MUST be
                  adjusted as if the HIP_SIGNATURE_2 was not in the
                  packet during the signature calculation, i.e., the
                  HIP packet length points to the beginning of
                  the HIP_SIGNATURE_2 parameter during signing and
                  verification.

   Zeroing the Initiator's HIT makes it possible to create R1 packets
   beforehand, to minimize the effects of possible DoS attacks.  Zeroing
   the Random #I and Opaque fields within the PUZZLE parameter allows
   these fields to be populated dynamically on precomputed R1s.

   Signature calculation and verification follows the process in
   <a href="#section-6.4.2">Section 6.4.2</a>.















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 47]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-48" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.13" href="#section-5.2.13">5.2.13</a>.  SEQ</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            Update ID                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           385
      Length         4
      Update ID      32-bit sequence number

   The Update ID is an unsigned quantity, initialized by a host to zero
   upon moving to ESTABLISHED state.  The Update ID has scope within a
   single HIP association, and not across multiple associations or
   multiple hosts.  The Update ID is incremented by one before each new
   UPDATE that is sent by the host; the first UPDATE packet originated
   by a host has an Update ID of 0.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.14" href="#section-5.2.14">5.2.14</a>.  ACK</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       peer Update ID                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type            449
      Length          variable (multiple of 4)
      peer Update ID  32-bit sequence number corresponding to the
                      Update ID being ACKed.


   The ACK parameter includes one or more Update IDs that have been
   received from the peer.  The Length field identifies the number of
   peer Update IDs that are present in the parameter.











<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 48]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-49" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.15" href="#section-5.2.15">5.2.15</a>.  ENCRYPTED</span>

       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                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              IV                               /
      /                                                               /
      /                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               /
      /                        Encrypted data                         /
      /                                                               /
      /                               +-------------------------------+
      /                               |            Padding            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           641
      Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                     Padding
      Reserved       zero when sent, ignored when received
      IV             Initialization vector, if needed, otherwise
                     nonexistent.  The length of the IV is inferred from
                     the HIP transform.
      Encrypted      The data is encrypted using an encryption algorithm
        data         as defined in HIP transform.

   The ENCRYPTED parameter encapsulates another parameter, the encrypted
   data, which holds one or more HIP parameters in block encrypted form.

   Consequently, the first fields in the encapsulated parameter(s) are
   Type and Length of the first such parameter, allowing the contents to
   be easily parsed after decryption.

   The field labelled "Encrypted data" consists of the output of one or
   more HIP parameters concatenated together that have been passed
   through an encryption algorithm.  Each of these inner parameters is
   padded according to the rules of <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a> for padding individual
   parameters.  As a result, the concatenated parameters will be a block
   of data that is 8-byte aligned.

   Some encryption algorithms require that the data to be encrypted must
   be a multiple of the cipher algorithm block size.  In this case, the
   above block of data MUST include additional padding, as specified by
   the encryption algorithm.  The size of the extra padding is selected
   so that the length of the unencrypted data block is a multiple of the



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 49]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-50" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   cipher block size.  The encryption algorithm may specify padding
   bytes other than zero; for example, AES [<a href="#ref-FIPS01" title="&quot;FIPS PUB 197: Advanced Encryption Standard&quot;">FIPS01</a>] uses the PKCS5
   padding scheme (see <a href="./rfc2898#section-6.1.1">section&nbsp;6.1.1 of [RFC2898]</a>) where the remaining n
   bytes to fill the block each have the value n.  This yields an
   "unencrypted data" block that is transformed to an "encrypted data"
   block by the cipher suite.  This extra padding added to the set of
   parameters to satisfy the cipher block alignment rules is not counted
   in HIP TLV length fields, and this extra padding should be removed by
   the cipher suite upon decryption.

   Note that the length of the cipher suite output may be smaller or
   larger than the length of the set of parameters to be encrypted,
   since the encryption process may compress the data or add additional
   padding to the data.

   Once this encryption process is completed, the Encrypted data field
   is ready for inclusion in the Parameter.  If necessary, additional
   Padding for 8-byte alignment is then added according to the rules of
   <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.16" href="#section-5.2.16">5.2.16</a>.  NOTIFICATION</span>

   The NOTIFICATION parameter is used to transmit informational data,
   such as error conditions and state transitions, to a HIP peer.  A
   NOTIFICATION parameter may appear in the NOTIFY packet type.  The use
   of the NOTIFICATION parameter in other packet types is for further
   study.
























<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 50]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-51" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


       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             |      Notify Message Type      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               /
      /                   Notification Data                           /
      /                                               +---------------+
      /                                               |     Padding   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type           832
      Length         length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
                     Padding
      Reserved       zero when sent, ignored when received
      Notify Message specifies the type of notification
        Type
      Notification   informational or error data transmitted in addition
        Data         to the Notify Message Type.  Values for this field
                     are type specific (see below).
      Padding        any Padding, if necessary, to make the parameter a
                     multiple of 8 bytes.

   Notification information can be error messages specifying why an SA
   could not be established.  It can also be status data that a process
   managing an SA database wishes to communicate with a peer process.
   The table below lists the Notification messages and their
   corresponding values.

   To avoid certain types of attacks, a Responder SHOULD avoid sending a
   NOTIFICATION to any host with which it has not successfully verified
   a puzzle solution.

   Types in the range 0-16383 are intended for reporting errors and in
   the range 16384-65535 for other status information.  An
   implementation that receives a NOTIFY packet with a NOTIFICATION
   error parameter in response to a request packet (e.g., I1, I2,
   UPDATE) SHOULD assume that the corresponding request has failed
   entirely.  Unrecognized error types MUST be ignored except that they
   SHOULD be logged.

   Notify payloads with status types MUST be ignored if not recognized.







<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 51]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-52" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   NOTIFICATION PARAMETER - ERROR TYPES     Value
   ------------------------------------     -----

   UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_PARAMETER_TYPE        1

      Sent if the parameter type has the "critical" bit set and the
      parameter type is not recognized.  Notification Data contains
      the two-octet parameter type.

   INVALID_SYNTAX                             7

      Indicates that the HIP message received was invalid because
      some type, length, or value was out of range or because the
      request was rejected for policy reasons.  To avoid a denial-
      of-service attack using forged messages, this status may only be
      returned for packets whose HMAC (if present) and SIGNATURE have
      been verified.  This status MUST be sent in response to any
      error not covered by one of the other status types, and should
      not contain details to avoid leaking information to someone
      probing a node.  To aid debugging, more detailed error
      information SHOULD be written to a console or log.

   NO_DH_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN                     14

      None of the proposed group IDs was acceptable.

   INVALID_DH_CHOSEN                         15

      The D-H Group ID field does not correspond to one offered
      by the Responder.

   NO_HIP_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN                    16

      None of the proposed HIP Transform crypto suites was
      acceptable.

   INVALID_HIP_TRANSFORM_CHOSEN              17

      The HIP Transform crypto suite does not correspond to
      one offered by the Responder.

   AUTHENTICATION_FAILED                     24

      Sent in response to a HIP signature failure, except when
      the signature verification fails in a NOTIFY message.






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 52]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-53" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   CHECKSUM_FAILED                           26

      Sent in response to a HIP checksum failure.

   HMAC_FAILED                               28

      Sent in response to a HIP HMAC failure.

   ENCRYPTION_FAILED                         32

      The Responder could not successfully decrypt the
      ENCRYPTED parameter.

   INVALID_HIT                               40

      Sent in response to a failure to validate the peer's
      HIT from the corresponding HI.

   BLOCKED_BY_POLICY                         42

      The Responder is unwilling to set up an association
      for some policy reason (e.g., received HIT is NULL
      and policy does not allow opportunistic mode).

   SERVER_BUSY_PLEASE_RETRY                  44

      The Responder is unwilling to set up an association as it is
      suffering under some kind of overload and has chosen to shed load
      by rejecting the Initiator's request.  The Initiator may retry;
      however, the Initiator MUST find another (different) puzzle
      solution for any such retries.  Note that the Initiator may need
      to obtain a new puzzle with a new I1/R1 exchange.

   NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES           Value
   ------------------------------           -----

   I2_ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                        16384

      The Responder has an I2 from the Initiator but had to queue the I2
      for processing.  The puzzle was correctly solved and the Responder
      is willing to set up an association but currently has a number of
      I2s in the processing queue.  R2 will be sent after the I2 has
      been processed.








<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 53]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-54" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.17" href="#section-5.2.17">5.2.17</a>.  ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Opaque data (variable length)                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type         897
      Length       variable
      Opaque data  opaque data, supposed to be meaningful only to the
                   node that sends ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED and receives a
                   corresponding ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED or
                   ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED.

   The ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED parameter contains an opaque blob of data
   that the sender wants to get echoed back in the corresponding reply
   packet.

   The ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED and corresponding echo response parameters
   MAY be used for any purpose where a node wants to carry some state in
   a request packet and get it back in a response packet.  The
   ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED is covered by the HMAC and SIGNATURE.  A HIP
   packet can contain only one ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED or
   ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED parameter.  The ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED parameter
   MUST be responded to with a corresponding echo response.
   ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED SHOULD be used, but if it is not possible, e.g.,
   due to a middlebox-provided response, it MAY be responded to with an
   ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.18" href="#section-5.2.18">5.2.18</a>.  ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Opaque data (variable length)                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type         63661
      Length       variable
      Opaque data  opaque data, supposed to be meaningful only to the
                   node that sends ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED and receives a
                   corresponding ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 54]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-55" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED parameter contains an opaque blob of data
   that the sender wants to get echoed back in the corresponding reply
   packet.

   The ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED and corresponding echo response parameters
   MAY be used for any purpose where a node wants to carry some state in
   a request packet and get it back in a response packet.  The
   ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED is not covered by the HMAC and SIGNATURE.  A
   HIP packet can contain one or more ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED parameters.
   It is possible that middleboxes add ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED parameters
   in HIP packets passing by.  The sender has to create the Opaque field
   so that it can later identify and remove the corresponding
   ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED parameter.

   The ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED parameter MUST be responded to with an
   ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED parameter.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.19" href="#section-5.2.19">5.2.19</a>.  ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Opaque data (variable length)                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type         961
      Length       variable
      Opaque data  opaque data, copied unmodified from the
                   ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED or ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED
                   parameter that triggered this response.

   The ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED parameter contains an opaque blob of data
   that the sender of the ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED wants to get echoed back.
   The opaque data is copied unmodified from the ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED
   parameter.

   The ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED and ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED parameters MAY be
   used for any purpose where a node wants to carry some state in a
   request packet and get it back in a response packet.  The
   ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED is covered by the HMAC and SIGNATURE.









<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 55]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-56" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.20" href="#section-5.2.20">5.2.20</a>.  ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED</span>

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Opaque data (variable length)                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type         63425
      Length       variable
      Opaque data  opaque data, copied unmodified from the
                   ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED or ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED
                   parameter that triggered this response.

   The ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED parameter contains an opaque blob of data
   that the sender of the ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED or ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED
   wants to get echoed back.  The opaque data is copied unmodified from
   the corresponding echo request parameter.

   The echo request and ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED parameters MAY be used
   for any purpose where a node wants to carry some state in a request
   packet and get it back in a response packet.  The
   ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED is not covered by the HMAC and SIGNATURE.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>.  HIP Packets</span>

   There are eight basic HIP packets (see Table 10).  Four are for the
   HIP base exchange, one is for updating, one is for sending
   notifications, and two are for closing a HIP association.




















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 56]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-57" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   |    Packet type   | Packet name                                    |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   |         1        | I1 - the HIP Initiator Packet                  |
   |                  |                                                |
   |         2        | R1 - the HIP Responder Packet                  |
   |                  |                                                |
   |         3        | I2 - the Second HIP Initiator Packet           |
   |                  |                                                |
   |         4        | R2 - the Second HIP Responder Packet           |
   |                  |                                                |
   |        16        | UPDATE - the HIP Update Packet                 |
   |                  |                                                |
   |        17        | NOTIFY - the HIP Notify Packet                 |
   |                  |                                                |
   |        18        | CLOSE - the HIP Association Closing Packet     |
   |                  |                                                |
   |        19        | CLOSE_ACK - the HIP Closing Acknowledgment     |
   |                  | Packet                                         |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+

               Table 10: HIP packets and packet type numbers

   Packets consist of the fixed header as described in <a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>,
   followed by the parameters.  The parameter part, in turn, consists of
   zero or more TLV-coded parameters.

   In addition to the base packets, other packet types will be defined
   later in separate specifications.  For example, support for mobility
   and multi-homing is not included in this specification.

   See Notation (<a href="#section-2.2">Section 2.2</a>) for used operations.

   In the future, an OPTIONAL upper-layer payload MAY follow the HIP
   header.  The Next Header field in the header indicates if there is
   additional data following the HIP header.  The HIP packet, however,
   MUST NOT be fragmented.  This limits the size of the possible
   additional data in the packet.













<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 57]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-58" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.1" href="#section-5.3.1">5.3.1</a>.  I1 - the HIP Initiator Packet</span>

   The HIP header values for the I1 packet:

      Header:
        Packet Type = 1
        SRC HIT = Initiator's HIT
        DST HIT = Responder's HIT, or NULL

      IP ( HIP () )

   The I1 packet contains only the fixed HIP header.

   Valid control bits: none

   The Initiator gets the Responder's HIT either from a DNS lookup of
   the Responder's FQDN, from some other repository, or from a local
   table.  If the Initiator does not know the Responder's HIT, it may
   attempt to use opportunistic mode by using NULL (all zeros) as the
   Responder's HIT.  See also "HIP Opportunistic Mode" (<a href="#section-4.1.6">Section 4.1.6</a>).

   Since this packet is so easy to spoof even if it were signed, no
   attempt is made to add to its generation or processing cost.

   Implementations MUST be able to handle a storm of received I1
   packets, discarding those with common content that arrive within a
   small time delta.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.2" href="#section-5.3.2">5.3.2</a>.  R1 - the HIP Responder Packet</span>

   The HIP header values for the R1 packet:

      Header:
        Packet Type = 2
        SRC HIT = Responder's HIT
        DST HIT = Initiator's HIT

      IP ( HIP ( [ R1_COUNTER, ]
                 PUZZLE,
                 DIFFIE_HELLMAN,
                 HIP_TRANSFORM,
                 HOST_ID,
                 [ ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED, ]
                 HIP_SIGNATURE_2 )
                 &lt;, ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED &gt;i)

   Valid control bits: A




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 58]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-59" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   If the Responder's HI is an anonymous one, the A control MUST be set.

   The Initiator's HIT MUST match the one received in I1.  If the
   Responder has multiple HIs, the Responder's HIT used MUST match
   Initiator's request.  If the Initiator used opportunistic mode, the
   Responder may select freely among its HIs.  See also "HIP
   Opportunistic Mode" (<a href="#section-4.1.6">Section 4.1.6</a>).

   The R1 generation counter is used to determine the currently valid
   generation of puzzles.  The value is increased periodically, and it
   is RECOMMENDED that it is increased at least as often as solutions to
   old puzzles are no longer accepted.

   The Puzzle contains a Random #I and the difficulty K.  The difficulty
   K indicates the number of lower-order bits, in the puzzle hash
   result, that must be zeros; see <a href="#section-4.1.2">Section 4.1.2</a>.  The Random #I is not
   covered by the signature and must be zeroed during the signature
   calculation, allowing the sender to select and set the #I into a
   precomputed R1 just prior sending it to the peer.

   The Diffie-Hellman value is ephemeral, and one value SHOULD be used
   only for one connection.  Once the Responder has received a valid
   response to an R1 packet, that Diffie-Hellman value SHOULD be
   deprecated.  Because it is possible that the Responder has sent the
   same Diffie-Hellman value to different hosts simultaneously in
   corresponding R1 packets, those responses should also be accepted.
   However, as a defense against I1 storms, an implementation MAY
   propose, and re-use if not avoidable, the same Diffie-Hellman value
   for a period of time, for example, 15 minutes.  By using a small
   number of different puzzles for a given Diffie-Hellman value, the R1
   packets can be precomputed and delivered as quickly as I1 packets
   arrive.  A scavenger process should clean up unused Diffie-Hellman
   values and puzzles.

   Re-using Diffie-Hellman public keys opens up the potential security
   risk of more than one Initiator ending up with the same keying
   material (due to faulty random number generators).  Also, more than
   one Initiator using the same Responder public key half may lead to
   potentially easier cryptographic attacks and to imperfect forward
   security.

   However, these risks involved in re-using the same key are
   statistical; that is, the authors are not aware of any mechanism that
   would allow manipulation of the protocol so that the risk of the re-
   use of any given Responder Diffie-Hellman public key would differ
   from the base probability.  Consequently, it is RECOMMENDED that
   implementations avoid re-using the same D-H key with multiple
   Initiators, but because the risk is considered statistical and not



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 59]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-60" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   known to be manipulable, the implementations MAY re-use a key in
   order to ease resource-constrained implementations and to increase
   the probability of successful communication with legitimate clients
   even under an I1 storm.  In particular, when it is too expensive to
   generate enough precomputed R1 packets to supply each potential
   Initiator with a different D-H key, the Responder MAY send the same
   D-H key to several Initiators, thereby creating the possibility of
   multiple legitimate Initiators ending up using the same Responder-
   side public key.  However, as soon as the Responder knows that it
   will use a particular D-H key, it SHOULD stop offering it.  This
   design is aimed to allow resource-constrained Responders to offer
   services under I1 storms and to simultaneously make the probability
   of D-H key re-use both statistical and as low as possible.

   If a future version of this protocol is considered, we strongly
   recommend that these issues be studied again.  Especially, the
   current design allows hosts to become potentially more vulnerable to
   a statistical, low-probability problem during I1 storm attacks than
   what they are if no attack is taking place; whether this is
   acceptable or not should be reconsidered in the light of any new
   experience gained.

   The HIP_TRANSFORM contains the encryption and integrity algorithms
   supported by the Responder to protect the HI exchange, in the order
   of preference.  All implementations MUST support the AES [<a href="./rfc3602" title="&quot;The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec&quot;">RFC3602</a>]
   with HMAC-SHA-1-96 [<a href="./rfc2404" title="&quot;The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH&quot;">RFC2404</a>].

   The ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED and ECHO_REQUEST_UNSIGNED contains data that
   the sender wants to receive unmodified in the corresponding response
   packet in the ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED or ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED
   parameter.

   The signature is calculated over the whole HIP envelope, after
   setting the Initiator's HIT, header checksum, as well as the Opaque
   field and the Random #I in the PUZZLE parameter temporarily to zero,
   and excluding any parameters that follow the signature, as described
   in <a href="#section-5.2.12">Section 5.2.12</a>.  This allows the Responder to use precomputed R1s.
   The Initiator SHOULD validate this signature.  It SHOULD check that
   the Responder's HI received matches with the one expected, if any.












<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 60]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-61" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.3" href="#section-5.3.3">5.3.3</a>.  I2 - the Second HIP Initiator Packet</span>

   The HIP header values for the I2 packet:

      Header:
        Type = 3
        SRC HIT = Initiator's HIT
        DST HIT = Responder's HIT

      IP ( HIP ( [R1_COUNTER,]
                 SOLUTION,
                 DIFFIE_HELLMAN,
                 HIP_TRANSFORM,
                 ENCRYPTED { HOST_ID } or HOST_ID,
                 [ ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED ,]
                 HMAC,
                 HIP_SIGNATURE
                 &lt;, ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED&gt;i ) )

   Valid control bits: A

   The HITs used MUST match the ones used previously.

   If the Initiator's HI is an anonymous one, the A control MUST be set.

   The Initiator MAY include an unmodified copy of the R1_COUNTER
   parameter received in the corresponding R1 packet into the I2 packet.

   The Solution contains the Random #I from R1 and the computed #J.  The
   low-order K bits of the RHASH(I | ... | J) MUST be zero.

   The Diffie-Hellman value is ephemeral.  If precomputed, a scavenger
   process should clean up unused Diffie-Hellman values.  The Responder
   may re-use Diffie-Hellman values under some conditions as specified
   in <a href="#section-5.3.2">Section 5.3.2</a>.

   The HIP_TRANSFORM contains the single encryption and integrity
   transform selected by the Initiator, that will be used to protect the
   HI exchange.  The chosen transform MUST correspond to one offered by
   the Responder in the R1.  All implementations MUST support the AES
   transform [<a href="./rfc3602" title="&quot;The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec&quot;">RFC3602</a>].

   The Initiator's HI MAY be encrypted using the HIP_TRANSFORM
   encryption algorithm.  The keying material is derived from the
   Diffie-Hellman exchanged as defined in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>.






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 61]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-62" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED and ECHO_RESPONSE_UNSIGNED contain the
   unmodified Opaque data copied from the corresponding echo request
   parameter.

   The HMAC is calculated over the whole HIP envelope, excluding any
   parameters after the HMAC, as described in <a href="#section-6.4.1">Section 6.4.1</a>.  The
   Responder MUST validate the HMAC.

   The signature is calculated over the whole HIP envelope, excluding
   any parameters after the HIP_SIGNATURE, as described in
   <a href="#section-5.2.11">Section 5.2.11</a>.  The Responder MUST validate this signature.  It MAY
   use either the HI in the packet or the HI acquired by some other
   means.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.4" href="#section-5.3.4">5.3.4</a>.  R2 - the Second HIP Responder Packet</span>

   The HIP header values for the R2 packet:

      Header:
        Packet Type = 4
        SRC HIT = Responder's HIT
        DST HIT = Initiator's HIT

      IP ( HIP ( HMAC_2, HIP_SIGNATURE ) )

   Valid control bits: none

   The HMAC_2 is calculated over the whole HIP envelope, with
   Responder's HOST_ID parameter concatenated with the HIP envelope.
   The HOST_ID parameter is removed after the HMAC calculation.  The
   procedure is described in <a href="#section-6.4.1">Section 6.4.1</a>.

   The signature is calculated over the whole HIP envelope.

   The Initiator MUST validate both the HMAC and the signature.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.5" href="#section-5.3.5">5.3.5</a>.  UPDATE - the HIP Update Packet</span>

   Support for the UPDATE packet is MANDATORY.

   The HIP header values for the UPDATE packet:

      Header:
        Packet Type = 16
        SRC HIT = Sender's HIT
        DST HIT = Recipient's HIT

      IP ( HIP ( [SEQ, ACK, ] HMAC, HIP_SIGNATURE ) )



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 62]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-63" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   Valid control bits: None

   The UPDATE packet contains mandatory HMAC and HIP_SIGNATURE
   parameters, and other optional parameters.

   The UPDATE packet contains zero or one SEQ parameter.  The presence
   of a SEQ parameter indicates that the receiver MUST ACK the UPDATE.
   An UPDATE that does not contain a SEQ parameter is simply an ACK of a
   previous UPDATE and itself MUST NOT be ACKed.

   An UPDATE packet contains zero or one ACK parameters.  The ACK
   parameter echoes the SEQ sequence number of the UPDATE packet being
   ACKed.  A host MAY choose to ACK more than one UPDATE packet at a
   time; e.g., the ACK may contain the last two SEQ values received, for
   robustness to ACK loss.  ACK values are not cumulative; each received
   unique SEQ value requires at least one corresponding ACK value in
   reply.  Received ACKs that are redundant are ignored.

   The UPDATE packet may contain both a SEQ and an ACK parameter.  In
   this case, the ACK is being piggybacked on an outgoing UPDATE.  In
   general, UPDATEs carrying SEQ SHOULD be ACKed upon completion of the
   processing of the UPDATE.  A host MAY choose to hold the UPDATE
   carrying ACK for a short period of time to allow for the possibility
   of piggybacking the ACK parameter, in a manner similar to TCP delayed
   acknowledgments.

   A sender MAY choose to forgo reliable transmission of a particular
   UPDATE (e.g., it becomes overcome by events).  The semantics are such
   that the receiver MUST acknowledge the UPDATE, but the sender MAY
   choose to not care about receiving the ACK.

   UPDATEs MAY be retransmitted without incrementing SEQ.  If the same
   subset of parameters is included in multiple UPDATEs with different
   SEQs, the host MUST ensure that the receiver's processing of the
   parameters multiple times will not result in a protocol error.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.6" href="#section-5.3.6">5.3.6</a>.  NOTIFY - the HIP Notify Packet</span>

   The NOTIFY packet is OPTIONAL.  The NOTIFY packet MAY be used to
   provide information to a peer.  Typically, NOTIFY is used to indicate
   some type of protocol error or negotiation failure.  NOTIFY packets
   are unacknowledged.  The receiver can handle the packet only as
   informational, and SHOULD NOT change its HIP state (<a href="#section-4.4.1">Section 4.4.1</a>)
   based purely on a received NOTIFY packet.







<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 63]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-64" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The HIP header values for the NOTIFY packet:

      Header:
        Packet Type = 17
        SRC HIT = Sender's HIT
        DST HIT = Recipient's HIT, or zero if unknown

      IP ( HIP (&lt;NOTIFICATION&gt;i, [HOST_ID, ] HIP_SIGNATURE) )

   Valid control bits: None

   The NOTIFY packet is used to carry one or more NOTIFICATION
   parameters.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.7" href="#section-5.3.7">5.3.7</a>.  CLOSE - the HIP Association Closing Packet</span>

   The HIP header values for the CLOSE packet:

      Header:
        Packet Type = 18
        SRC HIT = Sender's HIT
        DST HIT = Recipient's HIT

      IP ( HIP ( ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED, HMAC, HIP_SIGNATURE ) )

   Valid control bits: none

   The sender MUST include an ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED used to validate
   CLOSE_ACK received in response, and both an HMAC and a signature
   (calculated over the whole HIP envelope).

   The receiver peer MUST validate both the HMAC and the signature if it
   has a HIP association state, and MUST reply with a CLOSE_ACK
   containing an ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED corresponding to the received
   ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.8" href="#section-5.3.8">5.3.8</a>.  CLOSE_ACK - the HIP Closing Acknowledgment Packet</span>

   The HIP header values for the CLOSE_ACK packet:

      Header:
        Packet Type = 19
        SRC HIT = Sender's HIT
        DST HIT = Recipient's HIT

      IP ( HIP ( ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED, HMAC, HIP_SIGNATURE ) )

   Valid control bits: none



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 64]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-65" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The sender MUST include both an HMAC and signature (calculated over
   the whole HIP envelope).

   The receiver peer MUST validate both the HMAC and the signature.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>.  ICMP Messages</span>

   When a HIP implementation detects a problem with an incoming packet,
   and it either cannot determine the identity of the sender of the
   packet or does not have any existing HIP association with the sender
   of the packet, it MAY respond with an ICMP packet.  Any such replies
   MUST be rate-limited as described in [<a href="./rfc2463" title="&quot;Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification&quot;">RFC2463</a>].  In most cases, the
   ICMP packet will have the Parameter Problem type (12 for ICMPv4, 4
   for ICMPv6), with the Pointer field pointing to the field that caused
   the ICMP message to be generated.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.1" href="#section-5.4.1">5.4.1</a>.  Invalid Version</span>

   If a HIP implementation receives a HIP packet that has an
   unrecognized HIP version number, it SHOULD respond, rate-limited,
   with an ICMP packet with type Parameter Problem, the Pointer pointing
   to the VER./RES. byte in the HIP header.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.2" href="#section-5.4.2">5.4.2</a>.  Other Problems with the HIP Header and Packet Structure</span>

   If a HIP implementation receives a HIP packet that has other
   unrecoverable problems in the header or packet format, it MAY
   respond, rate-limited, with an ICMP packet with type Parameter
   Problem, the Pointer pointing to the field that failed to pass the
   format checks.  However, an implementation MUST NOT send an ICMP
   message if the checksum fails; instead, it MUST silently drop the
   packet.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.3" href="#section-5.4.3">5.4.3</a>.  Invalid Puzzle Solution</span>

   If a HIP implementation receives an I2 packet that has an invalid
   puzzle solution, the behavior depends on the underlying version of
   IP.  If IPv6 is used, the implementation SHOULD respond with an ICMP
   packet with type Parameter Problem, the Pointer pointing to the
   beginning of the Puzzle solution #J field in the SOLUTION payload in
   the HIP message.

   If IPv4 is used, the implementation MAY respond with an ICMP packet
   with the type Parameter Problem, copying enough of bytes from the I2
   message so that the SOLUTION parameter fits into the ICMP message,
   the Pointer pointing to the beginning of the Puzzle solution #J





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 65]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-66" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   field, as in the IPv6 case.  Note, however, that the resulting ICMPv4
   message exceeds the typical ICMPv4 message size as defined in
   [<a href="./rfc0792" title="&quot;Internet Control Message Protocol&quot;">RFC0792</a>].

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.4" href="#section-5.4.4">5.4.4</a>.  Non-Existing HIP Association</span>

   If a HIP implementation receives a CLOSE or UPDATE packet, or any
   other packet whose handling requires an existing association, that
   has either a Receiver or Sender HIT that does not match with any
   existing HIP association, the implementation MAY respond, rate-
   limited, with an ICMP packet with the type Parameter Problem, and
   with the Pointer pointing to the beginning of the first HIT that does
   not match.

   A host MUST NOT reply with such an ICMP if it receives any of the
   following messages: I1, R2, I2, R2, and NOTIFY.  When introducing new
   packet types, a specification SHOULD define the appropriate rules for
   sending or not sending this kind of ICMP reply.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  Packet Processing</span>

   Each host is assumed to have a single HIP protocol implementation
   that manages the host's HIP associations and handles requests for new
   ones.  Each HIP association is governed by a conceptual state
   machine, with states defined above in <a href="#section-4.4">Section 4.4</a>.  The HIP
   implementation can simultaneously maintain HIP associations with more
   than one host.  Furthermore, the HIP implementation may have more
   than one active HIP association with another host; in this case, HIP
   associations are distinguished by their respective HITs.  It is not
   possible to have more than one HIP association between any given pair
   of HITs.  Consequently, the only way for two hosts to have more than
   one parallel association is to use different HITs, at least at one
   end.

   The processing of packets depends on the state of the HIP
   association(s) with respect to the authenticated or apparent
   originator of the packet.  A HIP implementation determines whether it
   has an active association with the originator of the packet based on
   the HITs.  In the case of user data carried in a specific transport
   format, the transport format document specifies how the incoming
   packets are matched with the active associations.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Processing Outgoing Application Data</span>

   In a HIP host, an application can send application-level data using
   an identifier specified via the underlying API.  The API can be a
   backwards-compatible API (see [<a href="#ref-HIP-APP" title="&quot;Using the Host Identity Protocol with Legacy Applications&quot;">HIP-APP</a>]), using identifiers that look
   similar to IP addresses, or a completely new API, providing enhanced



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 66]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-67" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   services related to Host Identities.  Depending on the HIP
   implementation, the identifier provided to the application may be
   different; for example, it can be a HIT or an IP address.

   The exact format and method for transferring the data from the source
   HIP host to the destination HIP host is defined in the corresponding
   transport format document.  The actual data is transferred in the
   network using the appropriate source and destination IP addresses.

   In this document, conceptual processing rules are defined only for
   the base case where both hosts have only single usable IP addresses;
   the multi-address multi-homing case will be specified separately.

   The following conceptual algorithm describes the steps that are
   required for handling outgoing datagrams destined to a HIT.

   1.  If the datagram has a specified source address, it MUST be a HIT.
       If it is not, the implementation MAY replace the source address
       with a HIT.  Otherwise, it MUST drop the packet.

   2.  If the datagram has an unspecified source address, the
       implementation must choose a suitable source HIT for the
       datagram.

   3.  If there is no active HIP association with the given &lt;source,
       destination&gt; HIT pair, one must be created by running the base
       exchange.  While waiting for the base exchange to complete, the
       implementation SHOULD queue at least one packet per HIP
       association to be formed, and it MAY queue more than one.

   4.  Once there is an active HIP association for the given &lt;source,
       destination&gt; HIT pair, the outgoing datagram is passed to
       transport handling.  The possible transport formats are defined
       in separate documents, of which the ESP transport format for HIP
       is mandatory for all HIP implementations.

   5.  Before sending the packet, the HITs in the datagram are replaced
       with suitable IP addresses.  For IPv6, the rules defined in
       [<a href="./rfc3484" title="&quot;Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)&quot;">RFC3484</a>] SHOULD be followed.  Note that this HIT-to-IP-address
       conversion step MAY also be performed at some other point in the
       stack, e.g., before wrapping the packet into the output format.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Processing Incoming Application Data</span>

   The following conceptual algorithm describes the incoming datagram
   handling when HITs are used at the receiving host as application-
   level identifiers.  More detailed steps for processing packets are
   defined in corresponding transport format documents.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 67]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-68" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   1.  The incoming datagram is mapped to an existing HIP association,
       typically using some information from the packet.  For example,
       such mapping may be based on the ESP Security Parameter Index
       (SPI).

   2.  The specific transport format is unwrapped, in a way depending on
       the transport format, yielding a packet that looks like a
       standard (unencrypted) IP packet.  If possible, this step SHOULD
       also verify that the packet was indeed (once) sent by the remote
       HIP host, as identified by the HIP association.

       Depending on the used transport mode, the verification method can
       vary.  While the HI (as well as HIT) is used as the higher-layer
       identifier, the verification method has to verify that the data
       packet was sent by a node identity and that the actual identity
       maps to this particular HIT.  When using ESP transport format
       [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>], the verification is done using the SPI value in the
       data packet to find the corresponding SA with associated HIT and
       key, and decrypting the packet with that associated key.

   3.  The IP addresses in the datagram are replaced with the HITs
       associated with the HIP association.  Note that this IP-address-
       to-HIT conversion step MAY also be performed at some other point
       in the stack.

   4.  The datagram is delivered to the upper layer.  When
       demultiplexing the datagram, the right upper-layer socket is
       based on the HITs.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.3" href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  Solving the Puzzle</span>

   This subsection describes the puzzle-solving details.

   In R1, the values I and K are sent in network byte order.  Similarly,
   in I2, the values I and J are sent in network byte order.  The hash
   is created by concatenating, in network byte order, the following
   data, in the following order and using the RHASH algorithm:

      64-bit random value I, in network byte order, as appearing in R1
      and I2.

      128-bit Initiator's HIT, in network byte order, as appearing in
      the HIP Payload in R1 and I2.

      128-bit Responder's HIT, in network byte order, as appearing in
      the HIP Payload in R1 and I2.

      64-bit random value J, in network byte order, as appearing in I2.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 68]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-69" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   In order to be a valid response puzzle, the K low-order bits of the
   resulting RHASH digest must be zero.

   Notes:

      i) The length of the data to be hashed is 48 bytes.

      ii) All the data in the hash input MUST be in network byte order.

      iii) The order of the Initiator's and Responder's HITs are
      different in the R1 and I2 packets; see <a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>.  Care must be
      taken to copy the values in the right order to the hash input.

   The following procedure describes the processing steps involved,
   assuming that the Responder chooses to precompute the R1 packets:

   Precomputation by the Responder:
      Sets up the puzzle difficulty K.
      Creates a signed R1 and caches it.

   Responder:
      Selects a suitable cached R1.
      Generates a random number I.
      Sends I and K in an R1.
      Saves I and K for a Delta time.

   Initiator:
      Generates repeated attempts to solve the puzzle until a matching J
      is found:
      Ltrunc( RHASH( I | HIT-I | HIT-R | J ), K ) == 0
      Sends I and J in an I2.


   Responder:
      Verifies that the received I is a saved one.
      Finds the right K based on I.
      Computes V := Ltrunc( RHASH( I | HIT-I | HIT-R | J ), K )
      Rejects if V != 0
      Accept if V == 0












<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 69]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-70" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4" href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>.  HMAC and SIGNATURE Calculation and Verification</span>

   The following subsections define the actions for processing HMAC,
   HIP_SIGNATURE and HIP_SIGNATURE_2 parameters.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4.1" href="#section-6.4.1">6.4.1</a>.  HMAC Calculation</span>

   The following process applies both to the HMAC and HMAC_2 parameters.
   When processing HMAC_2, the difference is that the HMAC calculation
   includes a pseudo HOST_ID field containing the Responder's
   information as sent in the R1 packet earlier.

   Both the Initiator and the Responder should take some care when
   verifying or calculating the HMAC_2.  Specifically, the Responder
   should preserve other parameters than the HOST_ID when sending the
   R2.  Also, the Initiator has to preserve the HOST_ID exactly as it
   was received in the R1 packet.

   The scope of the calculation for HMAC and HMAC_2 is:

   HMAC: { HIP header | [ Parameters ] }

   where Parameters include all HIP parameters of the packet that is
   being calculated with Type values from 1 to (HMAC's Type value - 1)
   and exclude parameters with Type values greater or equal to HMAC's
   Type value.

   During HMAC calculation, the following applies:

   o  In the HIP header, the Checksum field is set to zero.

   o  In the HIP header, the Header Length field value is calculated to
      the beginning of the HMAC parameter.

   Parameter order is described in <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>.

   HMAC_2: { HIP header | [ Parameters ] | HOST_ID }

   where Parameters include all HIP parameters for the packet that is
   being calculated with Type values from 1 to (HMAC_2's Type value - 1)
   and exclude parameters with Type values greater or equal to HMAC_2's
   Type value.

   During HMAC_2 calculation, the following applies:

   o  In the HIP header, the Checksum field is set to zero.





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 70]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-71" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   o  In the HIP header, the Header Length field value is calculated to
      the beginning of the HMAC_2 parameter and added to the length of
      the concatenated HOST_ID parameter length.

   o  HOST_ID parameter is exactly in the form it was received in the R1
      packet from the Responder.

   Parameter order is described in <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>, except that the
   HOST_ID parameter in this calculation is added to the end.

   The HMAC parameter is defined in <a href="#section-5.2.9">Section 5.2.9</a> and the HMAC_2
   parameter in <a href="#section-5.2.10">Section 5.2.10</a>.  The HMAC calculation and verification
   process (the process applies both to HMAC and HMAC_2 except where
   HMAC_2 is mentioned separately) is as follows:

   Packet sender:

   1.  Create the HIP packet, without the HMAC, HIP_SIGNATURE,
       HIP_SIGNATURE_2, or any other parameter with greater Type value
       than the HMAC parameter has.

   2.  In case of HMAC_2 calculation, add a HOST_ID (Responder)
       parameter to the end of the packet.

   3.  Calculate the Header Length field in the HIP header including the
       added HOST_ID parameter in case of HMAC_2.

   4.  Compute the HMAC using either HIP-gl or HIP-lg integrity key
       retrieved from KEYMAT as defined in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>.

   5.  In case of HMAC_2, remove the HOST_ID parameter from the packet.

   6.  Add the HMAC parameter to the packet and any parameter with
       greater Type value than the HMAC's (HMAC_2's) that may follow,
       including possible HIP_SIGNATURE or HIP_SIGNATURE_2 parameters

   7.  Recalculate the Length field in the HIP header.

   Packet receiver:

   1.  Verify the HIP header Length field.

   2.  Remove the HMAC or HMAC_2 parameter, as well as all other
       parameters that follow it with greater Type value including
       possible HIP_SIGNATURE or HIP_SIGNATURE_2 fields, saving the
       contents if they will be needed later.





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 71]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-72" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   3.  In case of HMAC_2, build and add a HOST_ID parameter (with
       Responder information) to the packet.  The HOST_ID parameter
       should be identical to the one previously received from the
       Responder.

   4.  Recalculate the HIP packet length in the HIP header and clear the
       Checksum field (set it to all zeros).  In case of HMAC_2, the
       length is calculated with the added HOST_ID parameter.

   5.  Compute the HMAC using either HIP-gl or HIP-lg integrity key as
       defined in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a> and verify it against the received HMAC.

   6.  Set Checksum and Header Length field in the HIP header to
       original values.

   7.  In case of HMAC_2, remove the HOST_ID parameter from the packet
       before further processing.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4.2" href="#section-6.4.2">6.4.2</a>.  Signature Calculation</span>

   The following process applies both to the HIP_SIGNATURE and
   HIP_SIGNATURE_2 parameters.  When processing HIP_SIGNATURE_2, the
   only difference is that instead of HIP_SIGNATURE parameter, the
   HIP_SIGNATURE_2 parameter is used, and the Initiator's HIT and PUZZLE
   Opaque and Random #I fields are cleared (set to all zeros) before
   computing the signature.  The HIP_SIGNATURE parameter is defined in
   <a href="#section-5.2.11">Section 5.2.11</a> and the HIP_SIGNATURE_2 parameter in <a href="#section-5.2.12">Section 5.2.12</a>.

   The scope of the calculation for HIP_SIGNATURE and HIP_SIGNATURE_2
   is:

   HIP_SIGNATURE: { HIP header | [ Parameters ] }

   where Parameters include all HIP parameters for the packet that is
   being calculated with Type values from 1 to (HIP_SIGNATURE's Type
   value - 1).

   During signature calculation, the following apply:

   o  In the HIP header, the Checksum field is set to zero.

   o  In the HIP header, the Header Length field value is calculated to
      the beginning of the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter.

   Parameter order is described in <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>.






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 72]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-73" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   HIP_SIGNATURE_2: { HIP header | [ Parameters ] }

   where Parameters include all HIP parameters for the packet that is
   being calculated with Type values from 1 to (HIP_SIGNATURE_2's Type
   value - 1).

   During signature calculation, the following apply:

   o  In the HIP header, the Initiator's HIT field and Checksum fields
      are set to zero.

   o  In the HIP header, the Header Length field value is calculated to
      the beginning of the HIP_SIGNATURE_2 parameter.

   o  PUZZLE parameter's Opaque and Random #I fields are set to zero.

   Parameter order is described in <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>.

   Signature calculation and verification process (the process applies
   both to HIP_SIGNATURE and HIP_SIGNATURE_2 except in the case where
   HIP_SIGNATURE_2 is separately mentioned):

   Packet sender:

   1.  Create the HIP packet without the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter or any
       parameters that follow the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter.

   2.  Calculate the Length field and zero the Checksum field in the HIP
       header.  In case of HIP_SIGNATURE_2, set Initiator's HIT field in
       the HIP header as well as PUZZLE parameter's Opaque and Random #I
       fields to zero.

   3.  Compute the signature using the private key corresponding to the
       Host Identifier (public key).

   4.  Add the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter to the packet.

   5.  Add any parameters that follow the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter.

   6.  Recalculate the Length field in the HIP header, and calculate the
       Checksum field.










<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 73]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-74" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   Packet receiver:

   1.  Verify the HIP header Length field.

   2.  Save the contents of the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter and any
       parameters following the HIP_SIGNATURE parameter and remove them
       from the packet.

   3.  Recalculate the HIP packet Length in the HIP header and clear the
       Checksum field (set it to all zeros).  In case of
       HIP_SIGNATURE_2, set Initiator's HIT field in HIP header as well
       as PUZZLE parameter's Opaque and Random #I fields to zero.

   4.  Compute the signature and verify it against the received
       signature using the packet sender's Host Identifier (public key).

   5.  Restore the original packet by adding removed parameters (in step
       2) and resetting the values that were set to zero (in step 3).

   The verification can use either the HI received from a HIP packet,
   the HI from a DNS query, if the FQDN has been received in the HOST_ID
   packet, or one received by some other means.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.5" href="#section-6.5">6.5</a>.  HIP KEYMAT Generation</span>

   HIP keying material is derived from the Diffie-Hellman session key,
   Kij, produced during the HIP base exchange (<a href="#section-4.1.3">Section 4.1.3</a>).  The
   Initiator has Kij during the creation of the I2 packet, and the
   Responder has Kij once it receives the I2 packet.  This is why I2 can
   already contain encrypted information.

   The KEYMAT is derived by feeding Kij and the HITs into the following
   operation; the | operation denotes concatenation.

    KEYMAT = K1 | K2 | K3 | ...
          where

    K1   = RHASH( Kij | sort(HIT-I | HIT-R) | I | J | 0x01 )
    K2   = RHASH( Kij | K1 | 0x02 )
    K3   = RHASH( Kij | K2 | 0x03 )
    ...
    K255 = RHASH( Kij | K254 | 0xff )
    K256 = RHASH( Kij | K255 | 0x00 )
    etc.







<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 74]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-75" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   Sort(HIT-I | HIT-R) is defined as the network byte order
   concatenation of the two HITs, with the smaller HIT preceding the
   larger HIT, resulting from the numeric comparison of the two HITs
   interpreted as positive (unsigned) 128-bit integers in network byte
   order.

   I and J values are from the puzzle and its solution that were
   exchanged in R1 and I2 messages when this HIP association was set up.
   Both hosts have to store I and J values for the HIP association for
   future use.

   The initial keys are drawn sequentially in the order that is
   determined by the numeric comparison of the two HITs, with comparison
   method described in the previous paragraph.  HOST_g denotes the host
   with the greater HIT value, and HOST_l the host with the lower HIT
   value.

   The drawing order for initial keys:

      HIP-gl encryption key for HOST_g's outgoing HIP packets

      HIP-gl integrity (HMAC) key for HOST_g's outgoing HIP packets

      HIP-lg encryption key (currently unused) for HOST_l's outgoing HIP
      packets

      HIP-lg integrity (HMAC) key for HOST_l's outgoing HIP packets

   The number of bits drawn for a given algorithm is the "natural" size
   of the keys.  For the mandatory algorithms, the following sizes
   apply:

   AES  128 bits

   SHA-1  160 bits

   NULL  0 bits

   If other key sizes are used, they must be treated as different
   encryption algorithms and defined separately.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.6" href="#section-6.6">6.6</a>.  Initiation of a HIP Exchange</span>

   An implementation may originate a HIP exchange to another host based
   on a local policy decision, usually triggered by an application
   datagram, in much the same way that an IPsec IKE key exchange can





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 75]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-76" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   dynamically create a Security Association.  Alternatively, a system
   may initiate a HIP exchange if it has rebooted or timed out, or
   otherwise lost its HIP state, as described in <a href="#section-4.5.4">Section 4.5.4</a>.

   The implementation prepares an I1 packet and sends it to the IP
   address that corresponds to the peer host.  The IP address of the
   peer host may be obtained via conventional mechanisms, such as DNS
   lookup.  The I1 contents are specified in <a href="#section-5.3.1">Section 5.3.1</a>.  The
   selection of which Host Identity to use, if a host has more than one
   to choose from, is typically a policy decision.

   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for
   initiating a HIP exchange:

   1.  The Initiator gets the Responder's HIT and one or more addresses
       either from a DNS lookup of the Responder's FQDN, from some other
       repository, or from a local table.  If the Initiator does not
       know the Responder's HIT, it may attempt opportunistic mode by
       using NULL (all zeros) as the Responder's HIT.  See also "HIP
       Opportunistic Mode" (<a href="#section-4.1.6">Section 4.1.6</a>).

   2.  The Initiator sends an I1 to one of the Responder's addresses.
       The selection of which address to use is a local policy decision.

   3.  Upon sending an I1, the sender shall transition to state I1-SENT,
       start a timer whose timeout value should be larger than the
       worst-case anticipated RTT, and shall increment a timeout counter
       associated with the I1.

   4.  Upon timeout, the sender SHOULD retransmit the I1 and restart the
       timer, up to a maximum of I1_RETRIES_MAX tries.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.6.1" href="#section-6.6.1">6.6.1</a>.  Sending Multiple I1s in Parallel</span>

   For the sake of minimizing the session establishment latency, an
   implementation MAY send the same I1 to more than one of the
   Responder's addresses.  However, it MUST NOT send to more than three
   (3) addresses in parallel.  Furthermore, upon timeout, the
   implementation MUST refrain from sending the same I1 packet to
   multiple addresses.  That is, if it retries to initialize the
   connection after timeout, it MUST NOT send the I1 packet to more than
   one destination address.  These limitations are placed in order to
   avoid congestion of the network, and potential DoS attacks that might
   happen, e.g., because someone's claim to have hundreds or thousands
   of addresses could generate a huge number of I1 messages from the
   Initiator.





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 76]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-77" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   As the Responder is not guaranteed to distinguish the duplicate I1s
   it receives at several of its addresses (because it avoids storing
   states when it answers back an R1), the Initiator may receive several
   duplicate R1s.

   The Initiator SHOULD then select the initial preferred destination
   address using the source address of the selected received R1, and use
   the preferred address as a source address for the I2.  Processing
   rules for received R1s are discussed in <a href="#section-6.8">Section 6.8</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.6.2" href="#section-6.6.2">6.6.2</a>.  Processing Incoming ICMP Protocol Unreachable Messages</span>

   A host may receive an ICMP 'Destination Protocol Unreachable' message
   as a response to sending a HIP I1 packet.  Such a packet may be an
   indication that the peer does not support HIP, or it may be an
   attempt to launch an attack by making the Initiator believe that the
   Responder does not support HIP.

   When a system receives an ICMP 'Destination Protocol Unreachable'
   message while it is waiting for an R1, it MUST NOT terminate the
   wait.  It MAY continue as if it had not received the ICMP message,
   and send a few more I1s.  Alternatively, it MAY take the ICMP message
   as a hint that the peer most probably does not support HIP, and
   return to state UNASSOCIATED earlier than otherwise.  However, at
   minimum, it MUST continue waiting for an R1 for a reasonable time
   before returning to UNASSOCIATED.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.7" href="#section-6.7">6.7</a>.  Processing Incoming I1 Packets</span>

   An implementation SHOULD reply to an I1 with an R1 packet, unless the
   implementation is unable or unwilling to set up a HIP association.
   If the implementation is unable to set up a HIP association, the host
   SHOULD send an ICMP Destination Protocol Unreachable,
   Administratively Prohibited, message to the I1 source address.  If
   the implementation is unwilling to set up a HIP association, the host
   MAY ignore the I1.  This latter case may occur during a DoS attack
   such as an I1 flood.

   The implementation MUST be able to handle a storm of received I1
   packets, discarding those with common content that arrive within a
   small time delta.

   A spoofed I1 can result in an R1 attack on a system.  An R1 sender
   MUST have a mechanism to rate-limit R1s to an address.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the HIP state machine does not transition upon
   sending an R1.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 77]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-78" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for
   responding to an I1 packet:

   1.  The Responder MUST check that the Responder's HIT in the received
       I1 is either one of its own HITs or NULL.

   2.  If the Responder is in ESTABLISHED state, the Responder MAY
       respond to this with an R1 packet, prepare to drop existing SAs,
       and stay at ESTABLISHED state.

   3.  If the Responder is in I1-SENT state, it must make a comparison
       between the sender's HIT and its own (i.e., the receiver's) HIT.
       If the sender's HIT is greater than its own HIT, it should drop
       the I1 and stay at I1-SENT.  If the sender's HIT is smaller than
       its own HIT, it should send R1 and stay at I1-SENT.  The HIT
       comparison goes similarly as in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>.

   4.  If the implementation chooses to respond to the I1 with an R1
       packet, it creates a new R1 or selects a precomputed R1 according
       to the format described in <a href="#section-5.3.2">Section 5.3.2</a>.

   5.  The R1 MUST contain the received Responder's HIT, unless the
       received HIT is NULL, in which case the Responder SHOULD select a
       HIT that is constructed with the MUST algorithm in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>,
       which is currently RSA.  Other than that, selecting the HIT is a
       local policy matter.

   6.  The Responder sends the R1 to the source IP address of the I1
       packet.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.7.1" href="#section-6.7.1">6.7.1</a>.  R1 Management</span>

   All compliant implementations MUST produce R1 packets.  An R1 packet
   MAY be precomputed.  An R1 packet MAY be reused for time Delta T,
   which is implementation dependent, and SHOULD be deprecated and not
   used once a valid response I2 packet has been received from an
   Initiator.  During an I1 message storm, an R1 packet may be re-used
   beyond this limit.  R1 information MUST NOT be discarded until Delta
   S after T.  Time S is the delay needed for the last I2 to arrive back
   to the Responder.

   An implementation MAY keep state about received I1s and match the
   received I2s against the state, as discussed in <a href="#section-4.1.1">Section 4.1.1</a>.








<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 78]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-79" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.7.2" href="#section-6.7.2">6.7.2</a>.  Handling Malformed Messages</span>

   If an implementation receives a malformed I1 message, it SHOULD NOT
   respond with a NOTIFY message, as such practice could open up a
   potential denial-of-service danger.  Instead, it MAY respond with an
   ICMP packet, as defined in <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.8" href="#section-6.8">6.8</a>.  Processing Incoming R1 Packets</span>

   A system receiving an R1 MUST first check to see if it has sent an I1
   to the originator of the R1 (i.e., it is in state I1-SENT).  If so,
   it SHOULD process the R1 as described below, send an I2, and go to
   state I2-SENT, setting a timer to protect the I2.  If the system is
   in state I2-SENT, it MAY respond to an R1 if the R1 has a larger R1
   generation counter; if so, it should drop its state due to processing
   the previous R1 and start over from state I1-SENT.  If the system is
   in any other state with respect to that host, it SHOULD silently drop
   the R1.

   When sending multiple I1s, an Initiator SHOULD wait for a small
   amount of time after the first R1 reception to allow possibly
   multiple R1s to arrive, and it SHOULD respond to an R1 among the set
   with the largest R1 generation counter.

   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for
   responding to an R1 packet:

   1.   A system receiving an R1 MUST first check to see if it has sent
        an I1 to the originator of the R1 (i.e., it has a HIP
        association that is in state I1-SENT and that is associated with
        the HITs in the R1).  Unless the I1 was sent in opportunistic
        mode (see <a href="#section-4.1.6">Section 4.1.6</a>), the IP addresses in the received R1
        packet SHOULD be ignored and, when looking up the right HIP
        association, the received R1 SHOULD be matched against the
        associations using only the HITs.  If a match exists, the system
        should process the R1 as described below.

   2.   Otherwise, if the system is in any other state than I1-SENT or
        I2-SENT with respect to the HITs included in the R1, it SHOULD
        silently drop the R1 and remain in the current state.

   3.   If the HIP association state is I1-SENT or I2-SENT, the received
        Initiator's HIT MUST correspond to the HIT used in the original,
        and the I1 and the Responder's HIT MUST correspond to the one
        used, unless the I1 contained a NULL HIT.

   4.   The system SHOULD validate the R1 signature before applying
        further packet processing, according to <a href="#section-5.2.12">Section 5.2.12</a>.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 79]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-80" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   5.   If the HIP association state is I1-SENT, and multiple valid R1s
        are present, the system SHOULD select from among the R1s with
        the largest R1 generation counter.

   6.   If the HIP association state is I2-SENT, the system MAY reenter
        state I1-SENT and process the received R1 if it has a larger R1
        generation counter than the R1 responded to previously.

   7.   The R1 packet may have the A bit set -- in this case, the system
        MAY choose to refuse it by dropping the R1 and returning to
        state UNASSOCIATED.  The system SHOULD consider dropping the R1
        only if it used a NULL HIT in I1.  If the A bit is set, the
        Responder's HIT is anonymous and should not be stored.

   8.   The system SHOULD attempt to validate the HIT against the
        received Host Identity by using the received Host Identity to
        construct a HIT and verify that it matches the Sender's HIT.

   9.   The system MUST store the received R1 generation counter for
        future reference.

   10.  The system attempts to solve the puzzle in R1.  The system MUST
        terminate the search after exceeding the remaining lifetime of
        the puzzle.  If the puzzle is not successfully solved, the
        implementation may either resend I1 within the retry bounds or
        abandon the HIP exchange.

   11.  The system computes standard Diffie-Hellman keying material
        according to the public value and Group ID provided in the
        DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter.  The Diffie-Hellman keying material
        Kij is used for key extraction as specified in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>.  If
        the received Diffie-Hellman Group ID is not supported, the
        implementation may either resend I1 within the retry bounds or
        abandon the HIP exchange.

   12.  The system selects the HIP transform from the choices presented
        in the R1 packet and uses the selected values subsequently when
        generating and using encryption keys, and when sending the I2.
        If the proposed alternatives are not acceptable to the system,
        it may either resend I1 within the retry bounds or abandon the
        HIP exchange.

   13.  The system initializes the remaining variables in the associated
        state, including Update ID counters.

   14.  The system prepares and sends an I2, as described in
        <a href="#section-5.3.3">Section 5.3.3</a>.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 80]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-81" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   15.  The system SHOULD start a timer whose timeout value should be
        larger than the worst-case anticipated RTT, and MUST increment a
        timeout counter associated with the I2.  The sender SHOULD
        retransmit the I2 upon a timeout and restart the timer, up to a
        maximum of I2_RETRIES_MAX tries.

   16.  If the system is in state I1-SENT, it shall transition to state
        I2-SENT.  If the system is in any other state, it remains in the
        current state.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.8.1" href="#section-6.8.1">6.8.1</a>.  Handling Malformed Messages</span>

   If an implementation receives a malformed R1 message, it MUST
   silently drop the packet.  Sending a NOTIFY or ICMP would not help,
   as the sender of the R1 typically doesn't have any state.  An
   implementation SHOULD wait for some more time for a possibly good R1,
   after which it MAY try again by sending a new I1 packet.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.9" href="#section-6.9">6.9</a>.  Processing Incoming I2 Packets</span>

   Upon receipt of an I2, the system MAY perform initial checks to
   determine whether the I2 corresponds to a recent R1 that has been
   sent out, if the Responder keeps such state.  For example, the sender
   could check whether the I2 is from an address or HIT that has
   recently received an R1 from it.  The R1 may have had Opaque data
   included that was echoed back in the I2.  If the I2 is considered to
   be suspect, it MAY be silently discarded by the system.

   Otherwise, the HIP implementation SHOULD process the I2.  This
   includes validation of the puzzle solution, generating the Diffie-
   Hellman key, decrypting the Initiator's Host Identity, verifying the
   signature, creating state, and finally sending an R2.

   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for
   responding to an I2 packet:

   1.   The system MAY perform checks to verify that the I2 corresponds
        to a recently sent R1.  Such checks are implementation
        dependent.  See <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> for a description of an example
        implementation.

   2.   The system MUST check that the Responder's HIT corresponds to
        one of its own HITs.








<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 81]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-82" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   3.   If the system's state machine is in the R2-SENT state, the
        system MAY check if the newly received I2 is similar to the one
        that triggered moving to R2-SENT.  If so, it MAY retransmit a
        previously sent R2, reset the R2-SENT timer, and the state
        machine stays in R2-SENT.

   4.   If the system's state machine is in the I2-SENT state, the
        system makes a comparison between its local and sender's HITs
        (similarly as in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>).  If the local HIT is smaller than
        the sender's HIT, it should drop the I2 packet, use the peer
        Diffie-Hellman key and nonce I from the R1 packet received
        earlier, and get the local Diffie-Hellman key and nonce J from
        the I2 packet sent to the peer earlier.  Otherwise, the system
        should process the received I2 packet and drop any previously
        derived Diffie-Hellman keying material Kij it might have formed
        upon sending the I2 previously.  The peer Diffie-Hellman key and
        the nonce J are taken from the just arrived I2 packet.  The
        local Diffie-Hellman key and the nonce I are the ones that were
        earlier sent in the R1 packet.

   5.   If the system's state machine is in the I1-SENT state, and the
        HITs in the I2 match those used in the previously sent I1, the
        system uses this received I2 as the basis for the HIP
        association it was trying to form, and stops retransmitting I1
        (provided that the I2 passes the below additional checks).

   6.   If the system's state machine is in any other state than R2-
        SENT, the system SHOULD check that the echoed R1 generation
        counter in I2 is within the acceptable range.  Implementations
        MUST accept puzzles from the current generation and MAY accept
        puzzles from earlier generations.  If the newly received I2 is
        outside the accepted range, the I2 is stale (perhaps replayed)
        and SHOULD be dropped.

   7.   The system MUST validate the solution to the puzzle by computing
        the hash described in <a href="#section-5.3.3">Section 5.3.3</a> using the same RHASH
        algorithm.

   8.   The I2 MUST have a single value in the HIP_TRANSFORM parameter,
        which MUST match one of the values offered to the Initiator in
        the R1 packet.

   9.   The system must derive Diffie-Hellman keying material Kij based
        on the public value and Group ID in the DIFFIE_HELLMAN
        parameter.  This key is used to derive the HIP association keys,
        as described in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>.  If the Diffie-Hellman Group ID is
        unsupported, the I2 packet is silently dropped.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 82]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-83" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   10.  The encrypted HOST_ID is decrypted by the Initiator encryption
        key defined in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>.  If the decrypted data is not a
        HOST_ID parameter, the I2 packet is silently dropped.

   11.  The implementation SHOULD also verify that the Initiator's HIT
        in the I2 corresponds to the Host Identity sent in the I2.
        (Note: some middleboxes may not able to make this verification.)

   12.  The system MUST verify the HMAC according to the procedures in
        <a href="#section-5.2.9">Section 5.2.9</a>.

   13.  The system MUST verify the HIP_SIGNATURE according to
        <a href="#section-5.2.11">Section 5.2.11</a> and <a href="#section-5.3.3">Section 5.3.3</a>.

   14.  If the checks above are valid, then the system proceeds with
        further I2 processing; otherwise, it discards the I2 and its
        state machine remains in the same state.

   15.  The I2 packet may have the A bit set -- in this case, the system
        MAY choose to refuse it by dropping the I2 and the state machine
        returns to state UNASSOCIATED.  If the A bit is set, the
        Initiator's HIT is anonymous and should not be stored.

   16.  The system initializes the remaining variables in the associated
        state, including Update ID counters.

   17.  Upon successful processing of an I2 when the system's state
        machine is in state UNASSOCIATED, I1-SENT, I2-SENT, or R2-SENT,
        an R2 is sent and the system's state machine transitions to
        state R2-SENT.

   18.  Upon successful processing of an I2 when the system's state
        machine is in state ESTABLISHED, the old HIP association is
        dropped and a new one is installed, an R2 is sent, and the
        system's state machine transitions to R2-SENT.

   19.  Upon the system's state machine transitioning to R2-SENT, the
        system starts a timer.  The state machine transitions to
        ESTABLISHED if some data has been received on the incoming HIP
        association, or an UPDATE packet has been received (or some
        other packet that indicates that the peer system's state machine
        has moved to ESTABLISHED).  If the timer expires (allowing for
        maximal retransmissions of I2s), the state machine transitions
        to ESTABLISHED.







<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 83]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-84" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.9.1" href="#section-6.9.1">6.9.1</a>.  Handling Malformed Messages</span>

   If an implementation receives a malformed I2 message, the behavior
   SHOULD depend on how many checks the message has already passed.  If
   the puzzle solution in the message has already been checked, the
   implementation SHOULD report the error by responding with a NOTIFY
   packet.  Otherwise, the implementation MAY respond with an ICMP
   message as defined in <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.10" href="#section-6.10">6.10</a>.  Processing Incoming R2 Packets</span>

   An R2 received in states UNASSOCIATED, I1-SENT, or ESTABLISHED
   results in the R2 being dropped and the state machine staying in the
   same state.  If an R2 is received in state I2-SENT, it SHOULD be
   processed.

   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for an
   incoming R2 packet:

   1.  The system MUST verify that the HITs in use correspond to the
       HITs that were received in the R1.

   2.  The system MUST verify the HMAC_2 according to the procedures in
       <a href="#section-5.2.10">Section 5.2.10</a>.

   3.  The system MUST verify the HIP signature according to the
       procedures in <a href="#section-5.2.11">Section 5.2.11</a>.

   4.  If any of the checks above fail, there is a high probability of
       an ongoing man-in-the-middle or other security attack.  The
       system SHOULD act accordingly, based on its local policy.

   5.  If the system is in any other state than I2-SENT, the R2 is
       silently dropped.

   6.  Upon successful processing of the R2, the state machine moves to
       state ESTABLISHED.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.11" href="#section-6.11">6.11</a>.  Sending UPDATE Packets</span>

   A host sends an UPDATE packet when it wants to update some
   information related to a HIP association.  There are a number of
   likely situations, e.g., mobility management and rekeying of an
   existing ESP Security Association.  The following paragraphs define
   the conceptual rules for sending an UPDATE packet to the peer.
   Additional steps can be defined in other documents where the UPDATE
   packet is used.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 84]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-85" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The system first determines whether there are any outstanding UPDATE
   messages that may conflict with the new UPDATE message under
   consideration.  When multiple UPDATEs are outstanding (not yet
   acknowledged), the sender must assume that such UPDATEs may be
   processed in an arbitrary order.  Therefore, any new UPDATEs that
   depend on a previous outstanding UPDATE being successfully received
   and acknowledged MUST be postponed until reception of the necessary
   ACK(s) occurs.  One way to prevent any conflicts is to only allow one
   outstanding UPDATE at a time.  However, allowing multiple UPDATEs may
   improve the performance of mobility and multihoming protocols.

   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for
   sending UPDATE packets.

   1.  The first UPDATE packet is sent with Update ID of zero.
       Otherwise, the system increments its own Update ID value by one
       before continuing the below steps.

   2.  The system creates an UPDATE packet that contains a SEQ parameter
       with the current value of Update ID.  The UPDATE packet may also
       include an ACK of the peer's Update ID found in a received UPDATE
       SEQ parameter, if any.

   3.  The system sends the created UPDATE packet and starts an UPDATE
       timer.  The default value for the timer is 2 * RTT estimate.  If
       multiple UPDATEs are outstanding, multiple timers are in effect.

   4.  If the UPDATE timer expires, the UPDATE is resent.  The UPDATE
       can be resent UPDATE_RETRY_MAX times.  The UPDATE timer SHOULD be
       exponentially backed off for subsequent retransmissions.  If no
       acknowledgment is received from the peer after UPDATE_RETRY_MAX
       times, the HIP association is considered to be broken and the
       state machine should move from state ESTABLISHED to state CLOSING
       as depicted in <a href="#section-4.4.3">Section 4.4.3</a>.  The UPDATE timer is cancelled upon
       receiving an ACK from the peer that acknowledges receipt of the
       UPDATE.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.12" href="#section-6.12">6.12</a>.  Receiving UPDATE Packets</span>

   When a system receives an UPDATE packet, its processing depends on
   the state of the HIP association and the presence and values of the
   SEQ and ACK parameters.  Typically, an UPDATE message also carries
   optional parameters whose handling is defined in separate documents.

   For each association, the peer's next expected in-sequence Update ID
   ("peer Update ID") is stored.  Initially, this value is zero.  Update
   ID comparisons of "less than" and "greater than" are performed with
   respect to a circular sequence number space.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 85]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-86" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   The sender may send multiple outstanding UPDATE messages.  These
   messages are processed in the order in which they are received at the
   receiver (i.e., no resequencing is performed).  When processing
   UPDATEs out-of-order, the receiver MUST keep track of which UPDATEs
   were previously processed, so that duplicates or retransmissions are
   ACKed and not reprocessed.  A receiver MAY choose to define a receive
   window of Update IDs that it is willing to process at any given time,
   and discard received UPDATEs falling outside of that window.

   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for
   receiving UPDATE packets.

   1.  If there is no corresponding HIP association, the implementation
       MAY reply with an ICMP Parameter Problem, as specified in
       <a href="#section-5.4.4">Section 5.4.4</a>.

   2.  If the association is in the ESTABLISHED state and the SEQ (but
       not ACK) parameter is present, the UPDATE is processed and
       replied to as described in <a href="#section-6.12.1">Section 6.12.1</a>.

   3.  If the association is in the ESTABLISHED state and the ACK (but
       not SEQ) parameter is present, the UPDATE is processed as
       described in <a href="#section-6.12.2">Section 6.12.2</a>.

   4.  If the association is in the ESTABLISHED state and there is both
       an ACK and SEQ in the UPDATE, the ACK is first processed as
       described in <a href="#section-6.12.2">Section 6.12.2</a>, and then the rest of the UPDATE is
       processed as described in <a href="#section-6.12.1">Section 6.12.1</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.12.1" href="#section-6.12.1">6.12.1</a>.  Handling a SEQ Parameter in a Received UPDATE Message</span>

   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for
   handling a SEQ parameter in a received UPDATE packet.

   1.  If the Update ID in the received SEQ is not the next in the
       sequence of Update IDs and is greater than the receiver's window
       for new UPDATEs, the packet MUST be dropped.

   2.  If the Update ID in the received SEQ corresponds to an UPDATE
       that has recently been processed, the packet is treated as a
       retransmission.  The HMAC verification (next step) MUST NOT be
       skipped.  (A byte-by-byte comparison of the received and a stored
       packet would be OK, though.)  It is recommended that a host cache
       UPDATE packets sent with ACKs to avoid the cost of generating a
       new ACK packet to respond to a replayed UPDATE.  The system MUST
       acknowledge, again, such (apparent) UPDATE message
       retransmissions but SHOULD also consider rate-limiting such
       retransmission responses to guard against replay attacks.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 86]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-87" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   3.  The system MUST verify the HMAC in the UPDATE packet.  If the
       verification fails, the packet MUST be dropped.

   4.  The system MAY verify the SIGNATURE in the UPDATE packet.  If the
       verification fails, the packet SHOULD be dropped and an error
       message logged.

   5.  If a new SEQ parameter is being processed, the parameters in the
       UPDATE are then processed.  The system MUST record the Update ID
       in the received SEQ parameter, for replay protection.

   6.  An UPDATE acknowledgment packet with ACK parameter is prepared
       and sent to the peer.  This ACK parameter may be included in a
       separate UPDATE or piggybacked in an UPDATE with SEQ parameter,
       as described in <a href="#section-5.3.5">Section 5.3.5</a>.  The ACK parameter MAY acknowledge
       more than one of the peer's Update IDs.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.12.2" href="#section-6.12.2">6.12.2</a>.  Handling an ACK Parameter in a Received UPDATE Packet</span>

   The following steps define the conceptual processing rules for
   handling an ACK parameter in a received UPDATE packet.

   1.  The sequence number reported in the ACK must match with an
       earlier sent UPDATE packet that has not already been
       acknowledged.  If no match is found or if the ACK does not
       acknowledge a new UPDATE, the packet MUST either be dropped if no
       SEQ parameter is present, or the processing steps in
       <a href="#section-6.12.1">Section 6.12.1</a> are followed.

   2.  The system MUST verify the HMAC in the UPDATE packet.  If the
       verification fails, the packet MUST be dropped.

   3.  The system MAY verify the SIGNATURE in the UPDATE packet.  If the
       verification fails, the packet SHOULD be dropped and an error
       message logged.

   4.  The corresponding UPDATE timer is stopped (see <a href="#section-6.11">Section 6.11</a>) so
       that the now acknowledged UPDATE is no longer retransmitted.  If
       multiple UPDATEs are newly acknowledged, multiple timers are
       stopped.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.13" href="#section-6.13">6.13</a>.  Processing NOTIFY Packets</span>

   Processing NOTIFY packets is OPTIONAL.  If processed, any errors in a
   received NOTIFICATION parameter SHOULD be logged.  Received errors
   MUST be considered only as informational, and the receiver SHOULD NOT
   change its HIP state (<a href="#section-4.4.1">Section 4.4.1</a>) purely based on the received
   NOTIFY message.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 87]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-88" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.14" href="#section-6.14">6.14</a>.  Processing CLOSE Packets</span>

   When the host receives a CLOSE message, it responds with a CLOSE_ACK
   message and moves to CLOSED state.  (The authenticity of the CLOSE
   message is verified using both HMAC and SIGNATURE).  This processing
   applies whether or not the HIP association state is CLOSING in order
   to handle CLOSE messages from both ends that cross in flight.

   The HIP association is not discarded before the host moves from the
   UNASSOCIATED state.

   Once the closing process has started, any need to send data packets
   will trigger creating and establishing of a new HIP association,
   starting with sending an I1.

   If there is no corresponding HIP association, the CLOSE packet is
   dropped.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.15" href="#section-6.15">6.15</a>.  Processing CLOSE_ACK Packets</span>

   When a host receives a CLOSE_ACK message, it verifies that it is in
   CLOSING or CLOSED state and that the CLOSE_ACK was in response to the
   CLOSE (using the included ECHO_RESPONSE_SIGNED in response to the
   sent ECHO_REQUEST_SIGNED).

   The CLOSE_ACK uses HMAC and SIGNATURE for verification.  The state is
   discarded when the state changes to UNASSOCIATED and, after that, the
   host MAY respond with an ICMP Parameter Problem to an incoming CLOSE
   message (see <a href="#section-5.4.4">Section 5.4.4</a>).

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.16" href="#section-6.16">6.16</a>.  Handling State Loss</span>

   In the case of system crash and unanticipated state loss, the system
   SHOULD delete the corresponding HIP state, including the keying
   material.  That is, the state SHOULD NOT be stored on stable storage.
   If the implementation does drop the state (as RECOMMENDED), it MUST
   also drop the peer's R1 generation counter value, unless a local
   policy explicitly defines that the value of that particular host is
   stored.  An implementation MUST NOT store R1 generation counters by
   default, but storing R1 generation counter values, if done, MUST be
   configured by explicit HITs.










<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 88]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-89" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>.  HIP Policies</span>

   There are a number of variables that will influence the HIP exchanges
   that each host must support.  All HIP implementations MUST support
   more than one simultaneous HI, at least one of which SHOULD be
   reserved for anonymous usage.  Although anonymous HIs will be rarely
   used as Responders' HIs, they will be common for Initiators.  Support
   for more than two HIs is RECOMMENDED.

   Many Initiators would want to use a different HI for different
   Responders.  The implementations SHOULD provide for an ACL of
   Initiator's HIT to Responder's HIT.  This ACL SHOULD also include
   preferred transform and local lifetimes.

   The value of K used in the HIP R1 packet can also vary by policy.  K
   should never be greater than 20, but for trusted partners it could be
   as low as 0.

   Responders would need a similar ACL, representing which hosts they
   accept HIP exchanges, and the preferred transform and local
   lifetimes.  Wildcarding SHOULD be supported for this ACL also.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>.  Security Considerations</span>

   HIP is designed to provide secure authentication of hosts.  HIP also
   attempts to limit the exposure of the host to various denial-of-
   service and man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks.  In so doing, HIP
   itself is subject to its own DoS and MitM attacks that potentially
   could be more damaging to a host's ability to conduct business as
   usual.

   The 384-bit Diffie-Hellman Group is targeted to be used in hosts that
   either do not require or are not powerful enough for handling strong
   cryptography.  Although there is a risk that with suitable equipment
   the encryption can be broken in real time, the 384-bit group can
   provide some protection for end-hosts that are not able to handle any
   stronger cryptography.  When the security provided by the 384-bit
   group is not enough for applications on a host, the support for this
   group should be turned off in the configuration.

   Denial-of-service attacks often take advantage of the cost of start
   of state for a protocol on the Responder compared to the 'cheapness'
   on the Initiator.  HIP makes no attempt to increase the cost of the
   start of state on the Initiator, but makes an effort to reduce the
   cost to the Responder.  This is done by having the Responder start
   the 3-way exchange instead of the Initiator, making the HIP protocol
   4 packets long.  In doing this, packet 2 becomes a 'stock' packet
   that the Responder MAY use many times, until some Initiator has



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 89]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-90" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   provided a valid response to such an R1 packet.  During an I1 storm,
   the host may reuse the same D-H value also even if some Initiator has
   provided a valid response using that particular D-H value.  However,
   such behavior is discouraged and should be avoided.  Using the same
   Diffie-Hellman values and random puzzle #I value has some risks.
   This risk needs to be balanced against a potential storm of HIP I1
   packets.

   This shifting of the start of state cost to the Initiator in creating
   the I2 HIP packet, presents another DoS attack.  The attacker spoofs
   the I1 HIP packet and the Responder sends out the R1 HIP packet.
   This could conceivably tie up the 'Initiator' with evaluating the R1
   HIP packet, and creating the I2 HIP packet.  The defense against this
   attack is to simply ignore any R1 packet where a corresponding I1 was
   not sent.

   A second form of DoS attack arrives in the I2 HIP packet.  Once the
   attacking Initiator has solved the puzzle, it can send packets with
   spoofed IP source addresses with either an invalid encrypted HIP
   payload component or a bad HIP signature.  This would take resources
   in the Responder's part to reach the point to discover that the I2
   packet cannot be completely processed.  The defense against this
   attack is after N bad I2 packets, the Responder would discard any I2s
   that contain the given Initiator HIT.  This will shut down the
   attack.  The attacker would have to request another R1 and use that
   to launch a new attack.  The Responder could up the value of K while
   under attack.  On the downside, valid I2s might get dropped too.

   A third form of DoS attack is emulating the restart of state after a
   reboot of one of the partners.  A restarting host would send an I1 to
   a peer, which would respond with an R1 even if it were in the
   ESTABLISHED state.  If the I1 were spoofed, the resulting R1 would be
   received unexpectedly by the spoofed host and would be dropped, as in
   the first case above.

   A fourth form of DoS attack is emulating the end of state.  HIP
   relies on timers plus a CLOSE/CLOSE_ACK handshake to explicitly
   signal the end of a HIP association.  Because both CLOSE and
   CLOSE_ACK messages contain an HMAC, an outsider cannot close a
   connection.  The presence of an additional SIGNATURE allows
   middleboxes to inspect these messages and discard the associated
   state (for e.g., firewalling, SPI-based NATing, etc.).  However, the
   optional behavior of replying to CLOSE with an ICMP Parameter Problem
   packet (as described in <a href="#section-5.4.4">Section 5.4.4</a>) might allow an IP spoofer
   sending CLOSE messages to launch reflection attacks.






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 90]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-91" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   A fifth form of DoS attack is replaying R1s to cause the Initiator to
   solve stale puzzles and become out of synchronization with the
   Responder.  The R1 generation counter is a monotonically increasing
   counter designed to protect against this attack, as described in
   <a href="#section-4.1.4">Section 4.1.4</a>.

   Man-in-the-middle attacks are difficult to defend against, without
   third-party authentication.  A skillful MitM could easily handle all
   parts of HIP, but HIP indirectly provides the following protection
   from a MitM attack.  If the Responder's HI is retrieved from a signed
   DNS zone, a certificate, or through some other secure means, the
   Initiator can use this to validate the R1 HIP packet.

   Likewise, if the Initiator's HI is in a secure DNS zone, a trusted
   certificate, or otherwise securely available, the Responder can
   retrieve the HI (after having got the I2 HIP packet) and verify that
   the HI indeed can be trusted.  However, since an Initiator may choose
   to use an anonymous HI, it knowingly risks a MitM attack.  The
   Responder may choose not to accept a HIP exchange with an anonymous
   Initiator.

   The HIP Opportunistic Mode concept has been introduced in this
   document, but this document does not specify what the semantics of
   such a connection setup are for applications.  There are certain
   concerns with opportunistic mode, as discussed in <a href="#section-4.1.6">Section 4.1.6</a>.

   NOTIFY messages are used only for informational purposes and they are
   unacknowledged.  A HIP implementation cannot rely solely on the
   information received in a NOTIFY message because the packet may have
   been replayed.  It SHOULD NOT change any state information based
   purely on a received NOTIFY message.

   Since not all hosts will ever support HIP, ICMP 'Destination Protocol
   Unreachable' messages are to be expected and present a DoS attack.
   Against an Initiator, the attack would look like the Responder does
   not support HIP, but shortly after receiving the ICMP message, the
   Initiator would receive a valid R1 HIP packet.  Thus, to protect from
   this attack, an Initiator should not react to an ICMP message until a
   reasonable delta time to get the real Responder's R1 HIP packet.  A
   similar attack against the Responder is more involved.  Normally, if
   an I1 message received by a Responder was a bogus one sent by an
   attacker, the Responder may receive an ICMP message from the IP
   address the R1 message was sent to.  However, a sophisticated
   attacker can try to take advantage of such a behavior and try to
   break up the HIP exchange by sending such an ICMP message to the
   Responder before the Initiator has a chance to send a valid I2
   message.  Hence, the Responder SHOULD NOT act on such an ICMP
   message.  Especially, it SHOULD NOT remove any minimal state created



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 91]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-92" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   when it sent the R1 HIP packet (if it did create one), but wait for
   either a valid I2 HIP packet or the natural timeout (that is, if R1
   packets are tracked at all).  Likewise, the Initiator should ignore
   any ICMP message while waiting for an R2 HIP packet, and should
   delete any pending state only after a natural timeout.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>.  IANA Considerations</span>

   IANA has reserved protocol number 139 for the Host Identity Protocol.

   This document defines a new 128-bit value under the CGA Message Type
   namespace [<a href="./rfc3972" title="&quot;Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)&quot;">RFC3972</a>], 0xF0EF F02F BFF4 3D0F E793 0C3C 6E61 74EA, to be
   used for HIT generation as specified in ORCHID [<a href="./rfc4843" title="&quot;An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers (ORCHID)&quot;">RFC4843</a>].

   This document also creates a set of new namespaces.  These are
   described below.

   Packet Type

      The 7-bit Packet Type field in a HIP protocol packet describes the
      type of a HIP protocol message.  It is defined in <a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>.
      The current values are defined in Sections <a href="#section-5.3.1">5.3.1</a> through <a href="#section-5.3.8">5.3.8</a>.

      New values are assigned through IETF Consensus [<a href="./rfc2434" title="">RFC2434</a>].

   HIP Version

      The four-bit Version field in a HIP protocol packet describes the
      version of the HIP protocol.  It is defined in <a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>.  The
      only currently defined value is 1.  New values are assigned
      through IETF Consensus.

   Parameter Type

      The 16-bit Type field in a HIP parameter describes the type of the
      parameter.  It is defined in <a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>.  The current values
      are defined in Sections <a href="#section-5.2.3">5.2.3</a> through <a href="#section-5.2.20">5.2.20</a>.

      With the exception of the assigned Type codes, the Type codes 0
      through 1023 and 61440 through 65535 are reserved for future base
      protocol extensions, and are assigned through IETF Consensus.

      The Type codes 32768 through 49141 are reserved for
      experimentation.  Types SHOULD be selected in a random fashion
      from this range, thereby reducing the probability of collisions.
      A method employing genuine randomness (such as flipping a coin)
      SHOULD be used.




<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 92]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-93" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


      All other Type codes are assigned through First Come First Served,
      with Specification Required [<a href="./rfc2434" title="">RFC2434</a>].

   Group ID

      The eight-bit Group ID values appear in the DIFFIE_HELLMAN
      parameter and are defined in <a href="#section-5.2.6">Section 5.2.6</a>.  New values either
      from the reserved or unassigned space are assigned through IETF
      Consensus.

   Suite ID

      The 16-bit Suite ID values in a HIP_TRANSFORM parameter are
      defined in <a href="#section-5.2.7">Section 5.2.7</a>.  New values either from the reserved or
      unassigned space are assigned through IETF Consensus.

   DI-Type

      The four-bit DI-Type values in a HOST_ID parameter are defined in
      <a href="#section-5.2.8">Section 5.2.8</a>.  New values are assigned through IETF Consensus.

   Notify Message Type

      The 16-bit Notify Message Type values in a NOTIFICATION parameter
      are defined in <a href="#section-5.2.16">Section 5.2.16</a>.

      Notify Message Type values 1-10 are used for informing about
      errors in packet structures, values 11-20 for informing about
      problems in parameters containing cryptographic related material,
      values 21-30 for informing about problems in authentication or
      packet integrity verification.  Parameter numbers above 30 can be
      used for informing about other types of errors or events.  Values
      51-8191 are error types reserved to be allocated by IANA.  Values
      8192-16383 are error types for experimentation.  Values 16385-
      40959 are status types to be allocated by IANA, and values 40960-
      65535 are status types for experimentation.  New values in ranges
      51-8191 and 16385-40959 are assigned through First Come First
      Served, with Specification Required.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>.  Acknowledgments</span>

   The drive to create HIP came to being after attending the MALLOC
   meeting at the 43rd IETF meeting.  Baiju Patel and Hilarie Orman
   really gave the original author, Bob Moskowitz, the assist to get HIP
   beyond 5 paragraphs of ideas.  It has matured considerably since the
   early versions thanks to extensive input from IETFers.  Most
   importantly, its design goals are articulated and are different from
   other efforts in this direction.  Particular mention goes to the



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 93]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-94" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   members of the NameSpace Research Group of the IRTF.  Noel Chiappa
   provided valuable input at early stages of discussions about
   identifier handling and Keith Moore the impetus to provide
   resolvability.  Steve Deering provided encouragement to keep working,
   as a solid proposal can act as a proof of ideas for a research group.

   Many others contributed; extensive security tips were provided by
   Steve Bellovin.  Rob Austein kept the DNS parts on track.  Paul
   Kocher taught Bob Moskowitz how to make the puzzle exchange expensive
   for the Initiator to respond, but easy for the Responder to validate.
   Bill Sommerfeld supplied the Birthday concept, which later evolved
   into the R1 generation counter, to simplify reboot management.  Erik
   Nordmark supplied the CLOSE-mechanism for closing connections.
   Rodney Thayer and Hugh Daniels provided extensive feedback.  In the
   early times of this document, John Gilmore kept Bob Moskowitz
   challenged to provide something of value.

   During the later stages of this document, when the editing baton was
   transferred to Pekka Nikander, the input from the early implementors
   was invaluable.  Without having actual implementations, this document
   would not be on the level it is now.

   In the usual IETF fashion, a large number of people have contributed
   to the actual text or ideas.  The list of these people include Jeff
   Ahrenholz, Francis Dupont, Derek Fawcus, George Gross, Andrew
   McGregor, Julien Laganier, Miika Komu, Mika Kousa, Jan Melen, Henrik
   Petander, Michael Richardson, Tim Shepard, Jorma Wall, and Jukka
   Ylitalo.  Our apologies to anyone whose name is missing.

   Once the HIP Working Group was founded in early 2004, a number of
   changes were introduced through the working group process.  Most
   notably, the original document was split in two, one containing the
   base exchange and the other one defining how to use ESP.  Some
   modifications to the protocol proposed by Aura, et al., [<a href="#ref-AUR03" title="&quot;Analysis of the HIP Base Exchange Protocol&quot;">AUR03</a>] were
   added at a later stage.
















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 94]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-95" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>.  References</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.1" href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>.  Normative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-FIPS95">FIPS95</a>]       NIST, "FIPS PUB 180-1: Secure Hash Standard",
                  April 1995.

   [<a id="ref-RFC0768">RFC0768</a>]      Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, <a href="./rfc768">RFC 768</a>,
                  August 1980.

   [<a id="ref-RFC1035">RFC1035</a>]      Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
                  specification", STD 13, <a href="./rfc1035">RFC 1035</a>, November 1987.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>]      Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2404">RFC2404</a>]      Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96
                  within ESP and AH", <a href="./rfc2404">RFC 2404</a>, November 1998.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2451">RFC2451</a>]      Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
                  Algorithms", <a href="./rfc2451">RFC 2451</a>, November 1998.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2460">RFC2460</a>]      Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version
                  6 (IPv6) Specification", <a href="./rfc2460">RFC 2460</a>, December 1998.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2463">RFC2463</a>]      Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message
                  Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6
                  (IPv6) Specification", <a href="./rfc2463">RFC 2463</a>, December 1998.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2536">RFC2536</a>]      Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name
                  System (DNS)", <a href="./rfc2536">RFC 2536</a>, March 1999.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2898">RFC2898</a>]      Kaliski, B., "PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography
                  Specification Version 2.0", <a href="./rfc2898">RFC 2898</a>, September 2000.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3110">RFC3110</a>]      Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the
                  Domain Name System (DNS)", <a href="./rfc3110">RFC 3110</a>, May 2001.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3484">RFC3484</a>]      Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
                  Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", <a href="./rfc3484">RFC 3484</a>, February 2003.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3526">RFC3526</a>]      Kivinen, T. and M. Kojo, "More Modular Exponential
                  (MODP) Diffie-Hellman groups for Internet Key Exchange
                  (IKE)", <a href="./rfc3526">RFC 3526</a>, May 2003.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3602">RFC3602</a>]      Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC
                  Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", <a href="./rfc3602">RFC 3602</a>,
                  September 2003.



<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 95]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-96" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   [<a id="ref-RFC3972">RFC3972</a>]      Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses
                  (CGA)", <a href="./rfc3972">RFC 3972</a>, March 2005.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4034">RFC4034</a>]      Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
                  S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
                  Extensions", <a href="./rfc4034">RFC 4034</a>, March 2005.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4282">RFC4282</a>]      Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
                  Network Access Identifier", <a href="./rfc4282">RFC 4282</a>, December 2005.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4307">RFC4307</a>]      Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
                  Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", <a href="./rfc4307">RFC 4307</a>,
                  December 2005.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4843">RFC4843</a>]      Nikander, P., Laganier, J., and F. Dupont, "An IPv6
                  Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash
                  Identifiers (ORCHID)", <a href="./rfc4843">RFC 4843</a>, April 2007.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5202">RFC5202</a>]      Jokela, P., Moskowitz, R., and P. Nikander, "Using the
                  Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format
                  with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)", <a href="./rfc5202">RFC 5202</a>,
                  April 2008.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.2" href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>.  Informative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-AUR03">AUR03</a>]        Aura, T., Nagarajan, A., and A. Gurtov, "Analysis of
                  the HIP Base Exchange Protocol", in Proceedings
                  of 10th Australasian Conference on Information
                  Security and  Privacy, July 2003.

   [<a id="ref-CRO03">CRO03</a>]        Crosby, SA. and DS. Wallach, "Denial of Service via
                  Algorithmic Complexity Attacks", in Proceedings
                  of Usenix Security Symposium 2003,  Washington, DC.,
                  August 2003.

   [<a id="ref-DIF76">DIF76</a>]        Diffie, W. and M. Hellman, "New Directions in
                  Cryptography", IEEE Transactions on Information
                  Theory vol. IT-22, number 6, pages 644-654, Nov 1976.

   [<a id="ref-FIPS01">FIPS01</a>]       NIST, "FIPS PUB 197: Advanced Encryption Standard",
                  Nov 2001.

   [<a id="ref-HIP-APP">HIP-APP</a>]      Henderson, T., Nikander, P., and M. Komu, "Using the
                  Host Identity Protocol with Legacy Applications", Work
                  in Progress, November 2007.






<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 96]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-97" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   [<a id="ref-IPsec-APIs">IPsec-APIs</a>]   Richardson, M., Williams, N., Komu, M., and S.
                  Tarkoma, "IPsec Application Programming Interfaces",
                  Work in Progress, February 2008.

   [<a id="ref-KAU03">KAU03</a>]        Kaufman, C., Perlman, R., and B. Sommerfeld, "DoS
                  protection for UDP-based protocols", ACM Conference on
                  Computer and Communications Security , Oct 2003.

   [<a id="ref-KRA03">KRA03</a>]        Krawczyk, H., "SIGMA: The 'SIGn-and-MAc' Approach to
                  Authenticated Diffie-Hellman and Its Use in the IKE-
                  Protocols", in Proceedings of CRYPTO 2003, pages 400-
                  425, August 2003.

   [<a id="ref-RFC0792">RFC0792</a>]      Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol",
                  STD 5, <a href="./rfc792">RFC 792</a>, September 1981.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2412">RFC2412</a>]      Orman, H., "The OAKLEY Key Determination Protocol",
                  <a href="./rfc2412">RFC 2412</a>, November 1998.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2434">RFC2434</a>]      Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
                  an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>,
                  <a href="./rfc2434">RFC 2434</a>, October 1998.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4306">RFC4306</a>]      Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
                  <a href="./rfc4306">RFC 4306</a>, December 2005.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4423">RFC4423</a>]      Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
                  (HIP) Architecture", <a href="./rfc4423">RFC 4423</a>, May 2006.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5204">RFC5204</a>]      Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol
                  (HIP) Rendezvous Extension", <a href="./rfc5204">RFC 5204</a>, April 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5205">RFC5205</a>]      Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, "Host Identity Protocol
                  (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions", <a href="./rfc5205">RFC 5205</a>,
                  April 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5206">RFC5206</a>]      Henderson, T., Ed., "End-Host Mobility and Multihoming
                  with the Host Identity Protocol", <a href="./rfc5206">RFC 5206</a>,
                  April 2008.

   [<a id="ref-SHIM6-PROTO">SHIM6-PROTO</a>]  Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3
                  Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6", Work in Progress,
                  February 2008.








<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 97]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-98" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>.  Using Responder Puzzles</span>

   As mentioned in <a href="#section-4.1.1">Section 4.1.1</a>, the Responder may delay state creation
   and still reject most spoofed I2s by using a number of pre-calculated
   R1s and a local selection function.  This appendix defines one
   possible implementation in detail.  The purpose of this appendix is
   to give the implementors an idea on how to implement the mechanism.
   If the implementation is based on this appendix, it MAY contain some
   local modification that makes an attacker's task harder.

   The Responder creates a secret value S, that it regenerates
   periodically.  The Responder needs to remember the two latest values
   of S.  Each time the S is regenerated, the R1 generation counter
   value is incremented by one.

   The Responder generates a pre-signed R1 packet.  The signature for
   pre-generated R1s must be recalculated when the Diffie-Hellman key is
   recomputed or when the R1_COUNTER value changes due to S value
   regeneration.

   When the Initiator sends the I1 packet for initializing a connection,
   the Responder gets the HIT and IP address from the packet, and
   generates an I value for the puzzle.  The I value is set to the pre-
   signed R1 packet.

        I value calculation:
        I = Ltrunc( RHASH ( S | HIT-I | HIT-R | IP-I | IP-R ), 64)

   The RHASH algorithm is the same that is used to generate the
   Responder's HIT value.

   From an incoming I2 packet, the Responder gets the required
   information to validate the puzzle: HITs, IP addresses, and the
   information of the used S value from the R1_COUNTER.  Using these
   values, the Responder can regenerate the I, and verify it against the
   I received in the I2 packet.  If the I values match, it can verify
   the solution using I, J, and difficulty K.  If the I values do not
   match, the I2 is dropped.

        puzzle_check:
        V := Ltrunc( RHASH( I2.I | I2.hit_i | I2.hit_r | I2.J ), K )
        if V != 0, drop the packet

   If the puzzle solution is correct, the I and J values are stored for
   later use.  They are used as input material when keying material is
   generated.





<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 98]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-99" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


   Keeping state about failed puzzle solutions depends on the
   implementation.  Although it is possible for the Responder not to
   keep any state information, it still may do so to protect itself
   against certain attacks (see <a href="#section-4.1.1">Section 4.1.1</a>).

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B" href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>.  Generating a Public Key Encoding from an HI</span>

   The following pseudo-code illustrates the process to generate a
   public key encoding from an HI for both RSA and DSA.

   The symbol := denotes assignment; the symbol += denotes appending.
   The pseudo-function encode_in_network_byte_order takes two
   parameters, an integer (bignum) and a length in bytes, and returns
   the integer encoded into a byte string of the given length.

   switch ( HI.algorithm )
   {

   case RSA:
    buffer := encode_in_network_byte_order ( HI.RSA.e_len,
              ( HI.RSA.e_len &gt; 255 ) ? 3 : 1 )
    buffer += encode_in_network_byte_order ( HI.RSA.e, HI.RSA.e_len )
    buffer += encode_in_network_byte_order ( HI.RSA.n, HI.RSA.n_len )
    break;

   case DSA:
    buffer := encode_in_network_byte_order ( HI.DSA.T , 1 )
    buffer += encode_in_network_byte_order ( HI.DSA.Q , 20 )
    buffer += encode_in_network_byte_order ( HI.DSA.P , 64 +
                                             8 * HI.DSA.T )
    buffer += encode_in_network_byte_order ( HI.DSA.G , 64 +
                                             8 * HI.DSA.T )
    buffer += encode_in_network_byte_order ( HI.DSA.Y , 64 +
                                             8 * HI.DSA.T )
    break;

   }














<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                     [Page 99]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-100" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C" href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a>.  Example Checksums for HIP Packets</span>

   The HIP checksum for HIP packets is specified in <a href="#section-5.1.1">Section 5.1.1</a>.
   Checksums for TCP and UDP packets running over HIP-enabled security
   associations are specified in <a href="#section-3.5">Section 3.5</a>.  The examples below use IP
   addresses of 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2 (and their respective IPv4-
   compatible IPv6 formats), and HITs with the prefix of 2001:10
   followed by zeros, followed by a decimal 1 or 2, respectively.

   The following example is defined only for testing a checksum
   calculation.  The address format for the IPv4-compatible IPv6 address
   is not a valid one, but using these IPv6 addresses when testing an
   IPv6 implementation gives the same checksum output as an IPv4
   implementation with the corresponding IPv4 addresses.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.1" href="#appendix-C.1">C.1</a>.  IPv6 HIP Example (I1)</span>

      Source Address:                 ::192.168.0.1
      Destination Address:            ::192.168.0.2
      Upper-Layer Packet Length:      40              0x28
      Next Header:                    139             0x8b
      Payload Protocol:               59              0x3b
      Header Length:                  4               0x4
      Packet Type:                    1               0x1
      Version:                        1               0x1
      Reserved:                       1               0x1
      Control:                        0               0x0
      Checksum:                       446             0x1be
      Sender's HIT  :                 2001:10::1
      Receiver's HIT:                 2001:10::2

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2" href="#appendix-C.2">C.2</a>.  IPv4 HIP Packet (I1)</span>

   The IPv4 checksum value for the same example I1 packet is the same as
   the IPv6 checksum (since the checksums due to the IPv4 and IPv6
   pseudo-header components are the same).















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                    [Page 100]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-101" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.3" href="#appendix-C.3">C.3</a>.  TCP Segment</span>

   Regardless of whether IPv6 or IPv4 is used, the TCP and UDP sockets
   use the IPv6 pseudo-header format [<a href="./rfc2460" title="&quot;Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification&quot;">RFC2460</a>], with the HITs used in
   place of the IPv6 addresses.

      Sender's HIT:                   2001:10::1
      Receiver's HIT:                 2001:10::2
      Upper-Layer Packet Length:      20              0x14
      Next Header:                    6               0x06
      Source port:                    65500           0xffdc
      Destination port:               22              0x0016
      Sequence number:                1               0x00000001
      Acknowledgment number:          0               0x00000000
      Header length:                  20              0x14
      Flags:                          SYN             0x02
      Window size:                    65535           0xffff
      Checksum:                       28618           0x6fca
      Urgent pointer:                 0               0x0000


        0x0000:  6000 0000 0014 0640 2001 0010 0000 0000
        0x0010:  0000 0000 0000 0001 2001 0010 0000 0000
        0x0020:  0000 0000 0000 0002 ffdc 0016 0000 0001
        0x0030:  0000 0000 5002 ffff 6fca 0000

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-D" href="#appendix-D">Appendix D</a>.  384-Bit Group</span>

   This 384-bit group is defined only to be used with HIP.  NOTE: The
   security level of this group is very low!  The encryption may be
   broken in a very short time, even real-time.  It should be used only
   when the host is not powerful enough (e.g., some PDAs) and when
   security requirements are low (e.g., during normal web surfing).

   This prime is: 2^384 - 2^320 - 1 + 2^64 * { [ 2^254 pi] + 5857 }

   Its hexadecimal value is:

       FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1
       29024E08 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B13B202 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF

   The generator is: 2.









<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                    [Page 101]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-102" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-E" href="#appendix-E">Appendix E</a>.  OAKLEY Well-Known Group 1</span>

   See also [<a href="./rfc2412" title="&quot;The OAKLEY Key Determination Protocol&quot;">RFC2412</a>] for definition of OAKLEY well-known group 1.

   OAKLEY Well-Known Group 1: A 768-bit prime

   The prime is 2^768 - 2^704 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^638 pi] + 149686 }.

   The hexadecimal value is:

       FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1
       29024E08 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD
       EF9519B3 CD3A431B 302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245
       E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9 A63A3620 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF

   This has been rigorously verified as a prime.

   The generator is: 22 (decimal)

































<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                    [Page 102]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-103" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


Authors' Addresses

   Robert Moskowitz
   ICSAlabs, An Independent Division of Verizon Business Systems
   1000 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 200
   Mechanicsburg, PA
   USA

   EMail: rgm@icsalabs.com


   Pekka Nikander
   Ericsson Research NomadicLab
   JORVAS  FIN-02420
   FINLAND

   Phone: +358 9 299 1
   EMail: pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com


   Petri Jokela (editor)
   Ericsson Research NomadicLab
   JORVAS  FIN-02420
   FINLAND

   Phone: +358 9 299 1
   EMail: petri.jokela@nomadiclab.com


   Thomas R. Henderson
   The Boeing Company
   P.O. Box 3707
   Seattle, WA
   USA

   EMail: thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com















<span class="grey">Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                    [Page 103]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-104" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>                 Host Identity Protocol               April 2008</span>


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a>, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   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.

Intellectual Property

   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 <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp79">BCP 79</a>.

   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
   <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.

   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.












Moskowitz, et al.             Experimental                    [Page 104]
</pre>