CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes
draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-02

CBOR Working Group                                         M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                  Sandelman Software Works
Intended status: Standards Track                            9 March 2021
Expires: 10 September 2021

           CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes
                  draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-02

Abstract

   This document describes two CBOR Tags to be used with IPv4 and IPv6
   addresses and prefixes.

   RFC-EDITOR-please remove: This work is tracked at
   https://github.com/mcr/cbor-network-address.git

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 10 September 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Richardson              Expires 10 September 2021               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   CBOR-IP                      March 2021

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     3.1.  IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     3.2.  IPv4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Encoder Consideration for prefixes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Decoder Considerations for prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  TBD1 - IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  TBD2 - IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   [RFC8949] defines a number of CBOR Tags for common items.

   Not included are ones to indicate if the item is an IPv4 or IPv6
   address, or if it is an address plus prefix length.  This document
   defines them.

2.  Terminology

   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.

3.  Protocol

   These tags can applied to byte strings to represent a single address.

   When applied to an array, the represent a CIDR-style prefix.  When a
   byte string (without prefix) appears in a context where a prefix is
   expected, then it is to be assumed that all bits are relevant.  That
   is, for IPv4, a /32 is implied, and for IPv6, a /128 is implied.

3.1.  IPv6

   IANA has allocated tag TBD1 for IPv6 uses.

Richardson              Expires 10 September 2021               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   CBOR-IP                      March 2021

   An IPv6 address is to be encoded as a sixteen-byte byte string
   ([RFC8949] section, 3.1, major type 2), prefixed with tag TBD1.

   An IPv6 prefix, such as 2001:db8:1234::/48 is to be encoded as a two
   element array, with the length of the prefix first.  Trailing zero
   octets MUST be omitted.

   For example:

   TBD1([ 48, h'20010db81234'])

3.2.  IPv4

   IANA has allocated tag TBD2 for IPv4 uses.

   An IPv4 address is to be encoded as a four-byte byte string
   ([RFC8949] section, 3.1, major type 2), prefixed with tag TBD2.

   An IPv4 prefix, such as 192.0.2.1/24 is to be encoded as a two
   element array, with the length of the prefix first.  Trailing zero
   octets MUST be omitted.

   For example:

       TBD2([ 24, h'C00002'])

4.  Encoder Consideration for prefixes

   An encoder may omit as many right-hand (trailing) bytes which are all
   zero as it wishes.

   There is no relationship between the number of bytes omitted and the
   prefix length.  For instance, the prefix 2001:db8::/64 is optimally
   encoded as:

   TBD1([64, h'20010db8'])

   An encoder MUST take care to set all trailing bits to zero.  While
   decoders are expected to ignore them, such garbage entities could be
   used as a covert channel, or may reveal the state of what would
   otherewise be private memory contents.  So for example,
   2001:db8:1230::/44 MUST be encoded as:

   TBD1([44, h'20010db81230'])

   even though variations like:

Richardson              Expires 10 September 2021               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                   CBOR-IP                      March 2021

   TBD1([44, h'20010db81233'])  WRONG
   TBD1([45, h'20010db8123f'])  WRONG

   would be parsed in the exact same way.

   The same considerations apply to IPv4 prefixes.

5.  Decoder Considerations for prefixes

   A decoder MUST consider all bits to the right of the prefix length to
   be zero.

   A decoder MUST handle the case where a prefix length specifies that
   more bits are relevant than are actually present in the byte-string.
   As a pathological case, ::/128 can be encoded as

   TBD1([0, h''])

   (EDNOTE: do we want to support:

   [0]

   or

   [0, null]

   (EDNOTE: what if the array has more than 2 members?  Is this a
   convert channel, or is this a possible extension point?)

   A recommendation for implementation is to first create an array of 16
   (or 4) bytes in size, set it all to zero.

   Then looking at the length of the included byte-string, and of the
   prefix-length, rounded up to the next multiple of 8, and taking
   whichever is smaller, copy that many bytes from the byte-string into
   the array.

   Finally, looking at the last three bits of the prefix-length (that
   is, the prefix-length modulo 8), use a static array of 8 values to
   force the lower bits, non-relevant bits to zero.

   A particularly paranoid decoder could examine the lower non-relevant
   bits to determine if they are non-zero, and reject the prefix.  This
   would detect non-compliant encoders, or a possible covert channel.

Richardson              Expires 10 September 2021               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                   CBOR-IP                      March 2021

6.  Security Considerations

   Identifying which byte sequences in a protocol are addresses may
   allow an attacker or eavesdropper to better understand what parts of
   a packet to attack.

   Reading the relevant RFC may provide more information, so it would
   seem that any additional security that was provided by not being able
   to identify what are IP addresses falls into the security by
   obscurity category.

   The right-hand bits of the prefix, after the prefix-length, are
   ignored by this protocol.  A malicious party could use them to
   transmit covert data in a way that would not affect the primary use
   of this encoding.  Such abuse would be detected by examination of the
   raw protocol bytes.  Users of this encoding should be aware of this
   possibility.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is asked to allocate two tags from the Specification Required
   area of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags, in the
   ("1+1") area.

7.1.  TBD1 - IPv6

   Data Item: byte string and array
   Semantics: IPv6 or [prefixlen,IPv6]

7.2.  TBD2 - IPv4

   Data Item: byte string and array
   Semantics: IPv4 or [prefixlen,IPv4]

8.  Acknowledgements

   none yet

9.  Changelog

   *  01 added security considerations about covert channel

10.  Normative References

   [BCP14]    Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Richardson              Expires 10 September 2021               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   CBOR-IP                      March 2021

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8949]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.

Author's Address

   Michael Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works

   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca

Richardson              Expires 10 September 2021               [Page 6]