RFC 4581 PROPOSED STANDARD IPV6 · SECURITY
CGA extensions: Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format
A Type-Length-Value format for Cryptographically Generated Address extensions.
RFC EDITOR
Bagnulo, M. and J. Arkko, "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format", RFC 4581, DOI 10.17487/RFC4581, October 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4581>.
BIBTEX
@misc{rfc4581,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 4581,
howpublished = {RFC 4581},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC4581},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4581},
author = {M. Bagnulo and J. Arkko},
title = {{Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format}},
pagetotal = 4,
year = 2006,
month = oct,
} LINEAGE · FROM THE RFC INDEXOpen full graph →
RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group M. Bagnulo
Request for Comments: 4581 UC3M
Updates: 3972 J. Arkko
Category: Standards Track Ericsson
October 2006
Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document defines a Type-Length-Value format for
Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) Extensions. This document
updates RFC 3972.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. CGA Extension Field Format ......................................2
3. IANA Considerations .............................................2
4. Security Considerations .........................................3
5. Acknowledgements ................................................3
6. Normative References ............................................3
1. Introduction
The Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) specification [1]
defines Extension Fields that allow additional information to be
included in the CGA Parameter Data Structure. So far there seems to
be enough interest in including additional data items into the CGA
Parameter Data Structure through these Extension Fields that it seems
reasonable to expect that more than one mechanism will require its
usage. In order to simplify the addition of multiple data items,
this document updates RFC 3972 [1], and it defines a Type-Length-
Value format for the Extension Fields.
2. CGA Extension Field Format
Data items to be included in Extension Fields of the CGA Parameter
Data Structure MUST be encoded using the following Type-Length-Value
(TLV) format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extension Type | Extension Data Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Extension Data ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Extension Type: 16-bit identifier of the type of the Extension Field.
Extension Data Length: 16-bit unsigned integer. Length of the
Extension Data field of this option, in octets.
Extension Data: Variable-length field. Extension-Type-specific data.
3. IANA Considerations
The IANA has created and will maintain a registry entitled, "CGA
Extension Type". The values in this name space are 16-bit unsigned
integers. Initial values for the CGA Extension Type field are given
below; future assignments are to be made through Standards Action
[2]. Assignments consist of a name and the value.
As recommended in [3], this document makes the following assignments
for experimental and testing use: the value 0xFFFD, with name
Exp_FFFD; the value 0xFFFE, with name Exp_FFFE, and the value 0xFFFF,
with name Exp_FFFF.
4. Security Considerations
No security concerns are raised by the adoption of the CGA Extension
format described in this document. However, proper security analysis
is required when new CGA Extensions are defined in order to make sure
that they introduce no new vulnerabilities to the existing CGA
schemes.
5. Acknowledgements
Comments to this document were provided by Sam Hartman, Allison
Mankin, Pekka Savola, Thomas Narten, Tuomas Aura, Stefan Rommer,
Julien Laganier, and James Kempf.
6. Normative References
[1] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC
3972, March 2005.
[2] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[3] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Marcelo Bagnulo
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
SPAIN
Phone: 34 91 6249500
EMail: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
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 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 BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
ISO Plain Language
On this page
PROBLEMCGA extension fields can carry extra information, but multiple data items need a shared format.
MECHANISMEach extension uses a 16-bit type, a 16-bit data length in octets and variable-length data.
WHY IT MATTERSThe RFC updates RFC 3972 and establishes an IANA registry for CGA extension types.
§1Why Extension Fields Need a Format
The Cryptographically Generated Address specification, RFC 3972, defines extension fields for adding information to a CGA Parameter Data Structure. The authors expected that more than one mechanism might use these fields.
This RFC updates RFC 3972 and defines a Type-Length-Value (TLV) format to make it simpler to include multiple data items.
Several mechanisms may add information to a CGA. This format gives each added item the same basic structure.
§2The Extension Field Layout
Data items in extension fields MUST use three parts. A 16-bit Extension Type identifies the kind of field. A 16-bit unsigned Extension Data Length gives the data length in octets. The remaining Extension Data is variable in length and has meaning specific to its type.
Each extension starts with a type and a length. The bytes after them hold the data for that type.
| Field | Name | Size | Value | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
EXTENSION-TYPE | Extension Type | 2 bytes | Identifies the extension field type. | |
EXTENSION-LENGTH | Extension Data Length | 2 bytes | Length of the data in octets. |
§3The CGA Extension Type Registry
IANA maintains a registry called CGA Extension Type. Its values are 16-bit unsigned integers, and future assignments require Standards Action.
For experimental and testing use, the RFC assigns 0xFFFD as Exp_FFFD, 0xFFFE as Exp_FFFE and 0xFFFF as Exp_FFFF.
IANA keeps the list of extension types. The RFC sets aside three type values for experiments and testing.
§4Security Considerations
The RFC says adopting the extension format raises no security concerns by itself. It also says each new CGA extension needs proper security analysis to check that it introduces no new vulnerabilities to existing CGA schemes.
The shared layout raises no security concern on its own. Each new kind of extension still needs its own security analysis.
§5References
[1]RFC 3972Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC 3972, March 2005.March 2005[2]RFC 2434Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.October 1998[3]RFC 3692Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.January 2004