Network Working Group M. Tüxen Internet-Draft Münster Univ. of Appl. Sciences Updates: 6951 (if approved) R. R. Stewart Intended status: Standards Track 7 September 2024 Expires: 11 March 2025 Additional Considerations for UDP Encapsulation of Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-cons-10 Abstract RFC 6951 specifies the UDP encapsulation of SCTP packets. The described handling of received packets requires the check of the verification tag. However, RFC 6951 misses a specification of the handling of received packets for which this check is not possible. This document updates RFC 6951 by specifying the handling of received packets for which the verification tag can not be checked. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 March 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components Tüxen & Stewart Expires 11 March 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Considerations for SCTP over UDP September 2024 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Handling of Out of the Blue Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Handling of SCTP Packets Containing an INIT Chunk Matching an Existing Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Middlebox Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction [RFC6951] specifies the UDP encapsulation of SCTP packets. To be able to adopt automatically to changes of the remote UDP encapsulation port number, it is updated when processing received packets. This includes automatic enabling and disabling of UDP encapsulation. Section 5.4 of [RFC6951] describes the processing of received packets and requires the check of the verification tag before updating the remote UDP encapsulation port and the possible enabling or disabling of UDP encapsulation. [RFC6951] basically misses a description of the handling of received packets where checking the verification tag is not possible. This includes packets for which no association can be found and packets containing an INIT chunk, since the verification tag of these packets is 0. 2. Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Tüxen & Stewart Expires 11 March 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Considerations for SCTP over UDP September 2024 3. Handling of Out of the Blue Packets If the processing of an out of the blue packet requires the sending of a packet in response according to the rules specified in Section 8.4 of [RFC9260], the following rules apply: 1. If the received packet was encapsulated in UDP, the response packets MUST also be encapsulated in UDP. The UDP source port and UDP destination port used for sending the response packet are the UDP destination port and UDP source port of the received packet. 2. If the received packet was not encapsulated in UDP, the response packet MUST NOT be encapsulated in UDP. Please note that in these cases a check of the verification tag is not possible. 4. Handling of SCTP Packets Containing an INIT Chunk Matching an Existing Associations SCTP packets containing an INIT chunk have the verification tag 0 in the common header. Therefore the verification tag can't be checked. The following rules apply when processing the received packet: 1. The remote UDP encapsulation port for the source address of the received SCTP packet MUST NOT be updated if the encapsulation of outgoing packets is enabled and the received SCTP packet is encapsulated. 2. The UDP encapsulation for outgoing packets towards the source address of the received SCTP packet MUST NOT be enabled, if it is disabled and the received SCTP packet is encapsulated. 3. The UDP encapsulation for outgoing packets towards the source address of the received SCTP packet MUST NOT be disabled, if it is enabled and the received SCTP packet is not encapsulated. Tüxen & Stewart Expires 11 March 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Considerations for SCTP over UDP September 2024 4. If the UDP encapsulation for outgoing packets towards the source address of the received SCTP packet is disabled and the received SCTP packet is encapsulated, an SCTP packet containing an ABORT chunk MUST be sent. The ABORT chunk MAY include the error cause defined below indicating an "Restart of an Association with New Encapsulation Port". This packet containing the ABORT chunk MUST be encapsulated in UDP. The UDP source port and UDP destination port used for sending the packet containing the ABORT chunk are the UDP destination port and UDP source port of the received packet containing the INIT chunk. 5. If the UDP encapsulation for outgoing packets towards the source address of the received SCTP packet is disabled and the received SCTP packet is not encapsulated, the processing defined in [RFC9260] MUST be performed. If a packet is sent in response, it MUST NOT be encapsulated. 6. If the UDP encapsulation for outgoing packets towards the source address of the received SCTP packet is enabled and the received SCTP packet is not encapsulated, an SCTP packet containing an ABORT chunk MUST be sent. The ABORT chunk MAY include the error cause defined below indicating an "Restart of an Association with New Encapsulation Port". This packet containing the ABORT chunk MUST NOT be encapsulated in UDP. 7. If the UDP encapsulation for outgoing packets towards the source address of the received SCTP packet is enabled and the received SCTP packet is encapsulated, but the UDP source port of the received SCTP packet is not equal to the remote UDP encapsulation port for the source address of the received SCTP packet, an SCTP packet containing an ABORT chunk MUST be sent. The ABORT chunk MAY include the error cause defined below indicating an "Restart of an Association with New Encapsulation Port". This packet containing the ABORT chunk MUST be encapsulated in UDP. The UDP source port and UDP destination port used for sending the packet containing the ABORT chunk are the UDP destination port and UDP source port of the received packet containing the INIT chunk. 8. If the UDP encapsulation for outgoing packets towards the source address of the received SCTP packet is enabled and the received SCTP packet is encapsulated and the UDP source port of the received SCTP packet is equal to the remote UDP encapsulation port for the source address of the received SCTP packet, the processing defined in [RFC9260] MUST be performed. If a packet is sent in response, it MUST be encapsulated. The UDP source port and UDP destination port used for sending the packet containing the ABORT chunk are the UDP destination port and UDP source port of the received packet containing the INIT chunk. Tüxen & Stewart Expires 11 March 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Considerations for SCTP over UDP September 2024 The error cause indicating an "Restart of an Association with New Encapsulation Port" is defined by the following figure. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cause Code = 14 (suggested) | Cause Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Current Encapsulation Port | New Encapsulation Port | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ Figure 1: Restart of an Association with New Encapsulation Port Error Cause Cause Code: 2 bytes (unsigned integer) This field holds the IANA defined cause code for the "Restart of an Association with New Encapsulation Port" error cause. IANA is requested to assign the value 14 (suggested) for this cause code. Cause Length: 2 bytes (unsigned integer) This field holds the length in bytes of the error cause; the value MUST be 8. Current Encapsulation Port: 2 bytes (unsigned integer) This field holds the remote encapsulation port currently being used for the destination address the received packet containing the INIT chunk was sent from. If the UDP encapsulation for destination address is currently disabled, 0 is used. New Encapsulation Port: 2 bytes (unsigned integer) If the received SCTP packet containing the INIT chunk is encapsulated in UDP, this field holds the UDP source port number of the UDP packet. If the received SCTP packet is not encapsulated in UDP, this field is 0. All transported integer numbers are in "network byte order" a.k.a., Big Endian. 5. Middlebox Considerations Middleboxes often use different timeouts for UDP based flows than for other flows. Therefore the HEARTBEAT.Interval parameter SHOULD be lowered to 15 seconds when UDP encapsulation is used. 6. IANA Considerations [NOTE to RFC-Editor: "RFCXXXX" is to be replaced by the RFC number you assign this document.] Tüxen & Stewart Expires 11 March 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Considerations for SCTP over UDP September 2024 [NOTE to RFC-Editor: The requested values for the cause code are tentative and to be confirmed by IANA.] This document (RFCXXXX) is the reference for the registration described in this section. A new error cause code has to be assigned by IANA. This requires an additional line in the "Error Cause Codes" registry for SCTP: +================+=============================+===========+ | Value | Cause Code | Reference | +================+=============================+===========+ | 14 (suggested) | Restart of an Association | [RFCXXXX] | | | with New Encapsulation Port | | +----------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ Table 1: New entry in Error Cause Codes registry 7. Security Considerations This document does not change the considerations given in [RFC6951]. However, not following the procedures given in this document might allow an attacker to take over SCTP associations. The attacker needs only to share the IP address of an existing SCTP association. If firewalls will be applied at the SCTP association level, they have to take the UDP encapsulation into account. 8. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC6951] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951, DOI 10.17487/RFC6951, May 2013, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . Tüxen & Stewart Expires 11 March 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Considerations for SCTP over UDP September 2024 [RFC9260] Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260, June 2022, . Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Georgios Papastergiou for the initial problem report. The authors wish to thank Irene Rüngeler and Felix Weinrank for their invaluable comments. This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334 (NEAT). The views expressed are solely those of the author(s). Authors' Addresses Michael Tüxen Münster University of Applied Sciences Stegerwaldstrasse 39 48565 Steinfurt Germany Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de Randall R. Stewart 15214 Pendio Drive Bella Collina, FL 34756 United States of America Email: randall@lakerest.net Tüxen & Stewart Expires 11 March 2025 [Page 7]