Internet-Draft BFD Authentication Optimization May 2024
Jethanandani, et al. Expires 6 November 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-16
Updates:
5880 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
M. Jethanandani
Kloud Services
A. Mishra
Aalyria Technologies
A. Saxena
Ciena Corporation
M. Bhatia
Google
J. Haas
Juniper Networks

Optimizing BFD Authentication

Abstract

This document describes an optimization to BFD Authentication as described in Section 6.7 of BFD RFC 5880. This document updates RFC 5880.

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 6 November 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Authenticating every BFD [RFC5880] control packet with MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm [RFC1321], or Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA-1) is a computationally intensive process. This makes it difficult, if not impossible to authenticate every packet - particularly at faster rates. Also, the recent escalating series of attacks on MD5 and SHA-1 described in Finding Collisions in the Full SHA-1 [SHA-1-attack1] and New Collision Search for SHA-1 [SHA-1-attack2] raise concerns about their remaining useful lifetime as outlined in Updated Security Considerations for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithm [RFC6151] and Security Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest Algorithm [RFC6194]. If replaced by stronger algorithms, the computational overhead, will make the task of authenticating every packet even more difficult to achieve.

This document proposes that BFD control packets that signal a state change, a demand mode change (to D bit), a poll sequence change (P or F bit change) be categorized as a significant change. Control packets that do not require a poll sequence, such as bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval or bfd.RequiredMinTxInterval, are also considered as a significant change. In other words, the contents of an Up packet MUST NOT change aside from the authentication section without stronger authentication to take advantage of the method described in this document.

In the Up state, most packets that are transmitted and received have no state change associated with them. Limiting authentication to packets that affect a BFD session's state allows more sessions to be supported with this optimized method of authentication.

Once the session has reached the Up state, the session can choose a less computationally intensive Auth Type. Currently, this includes:

To detect an on-path attacker attack when the session is in the Up state, implementations have two options. They can choose to use:

Most packets transmitted on a BFD session are BFD Up packets. Strongly authenticating a small subset of these packets with a Poll sequence as described above, for example every one minute, significantly reduces the computational demand for the system while maintaining security of the session across the configured interval.

1.1. Requirements Language

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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

1.2. Note to RFC Editor

This document uses several placeholder values throughout the document. Please replace them as follows and remove this note before publication.

RFC XXXX, where XXXX is the number assigned to this document at the time of publication.

2024-05-05 with the actual date of the publication of this document.

1.3. Terminology

The following terms used in this document have been defined in BFD [RFC5880].

  • Detect Multiplier

  • Detection Time

The following terms are introduced in this document.

Table 1
Term Meaning
significant change State change, a demand mode change (to D bit) or a poll sequence change (P or F bit). Control packets that do not require a poll sequence, such as bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval bfd.RequiredMinTxInterval, or bfd.DetectMult are also considered as a significant change.
configured interval Interval at which BFD control packets are retried with a stronger authentication.

2. Authentication Mode

The cryptographic authentication mechanisms specified in BFD [RFC5880] describes enabling and disabling of authentication as a one time operation. As a security precaution, it mentions that authentication state be allowed to change at most once. Once enabled, every packet must have Authentication Bit set and the associated Authentication Type appended. In addition, it states that an implementation SHOULD NOT allow the authentication state to be changed based on the receipt of a BFD control packet.

This document proposes that an authentication mode that permits both a strong authentication mode and a less expensive "optimized" mode to be used within the same BFD session. This pairing of a strong and an optimized mode of authentication is carried in new BFD authentication types representing a given authentication type pairing.

The proposal outlines which BFD control packets are required to be strongly authenticated. A BFD control packet that fails authentication is discarded, or a BFD control packet that was supposed to be strongly authenticated, but was not; e.g. a significant change packet, is discarded. However, there is no change to the state machine for BFD, as the decision of a significant change is still decided by how many valid consecutive packets were received.

The following table summarizes when the Auth Type should be set with a Auth (strongly authenticated) or an OPT ("optimized") authentication type. The table should be read with the column indicating the BFD state the receiver is currently in, and the row indicating the BFD state the receiver might transition to based on the BFD control packet received. The intersection of the two indicates whether the received BFD control packet should have the Auth Type set to either Auth, or OPT. The BFD state refers to the states in BFD state machine described in Section 6.2 of BFD [RFC5880].


       Read   : On state change from <column> to <row>
       Auth   : Strongly authenticated BFD control packet
       OPT    : "Optimized" authentiation, as configured.
       n/a    : Invalid state transition.
       Select : Most packets "optimized" authentication.
                Selective (periodic) packets strongly
                authenticated.
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      |        | DOWN   | INIT   | UP     |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      | DOWN   |  OPT   |  Auth  |  Auth  |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      | INIT   |  Auth  |  OPT   |  n/a   |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      | UP     |  Auth  |  Auth  | Select |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+

Figure 1: Optimized Authentication Map

In other words, the contents of an Up packet MUST NOT change aside from the authentication section without stronger authentication.

3. Signaling Optimized Authentication

When the Authentication Present (A) bit is set and the Auth Type is a type supporting Optimized BFD Authentication, the Auth Type signals a pairing of a strong authentication type and an optimized authentication type. This pairing is advertised in a single Auth Type value in order to permit implementations to be aware that:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Auth Type   |   Auth Len    |  Auth Key ID  |  Optimized    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Authentication Specific Data                ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Common BFD Authentication Section

The Meticulous Keyed MD5, Meticulous Keyed SHA-1, and Meticulous Keyed ISAAC authentication sections define the fourth octet as "Reserved". This document repurposes the "Reserved" field as the "Optimized" field when used for authentication types for optimized BFD procedures.

Optimized:

  1. When using the strong authentication type for optimized BFD Auth Types.
  2. When using the optimized authentication type for optimized BFD Auth Types.

Authentication Specific Data: When using the strong authentication type, the remainder of the authentication section carries that type's data.

For example, for Auth Type "Optimized MD5 Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Authentication" (type TBD):

When Optimized is 1, the format of the authentication section is the same as Section 4.3 of [RFC5880], excepting that Auth Type is still TBD and that Reserved is set to 1.

When Optimized is 2, the format of the authentication section is the same as Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers], excepting that Auth Type is still TBD and that Reserved is set to 2.

3.1. Error Handling

If the received BFD Control packet contains an optimized authentication type using these procedures and the Optimized field is not 1 or 2, then the received packet MUST be discarded.

4. Optimized Authentication Operations

As noted in Section 2, when using optimized BFD procedures, strong authentication is used in the BFD state machine to bring a BFD session to the Up state or to make any change of the BFD parameters as carried in the BFD Control packet when in the Up state.

Once the BFD session has reached the Up state, the BFD Up state MUST be signaled to the remote BFD system using the strong authentication for at least Detect Mult packets before switching to the optimized authentication mode. This is to permit mechanisms such as Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication [I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers] to be bootstrapped before switching to optimized authentication.

It is RECOMMENDED that when using optimized authentication that implementations switch from strong authentication to optimized authentication after sending at least Detect Mult packets. In the circumstances where a BFD session successfully reaches the Up state with strong authentication, but there is problems with the optimized authentication, this will permit the remote system to tear down the session as quickly as possible.

BFD sessions using optimized authentication that succeed in reaching the Up state using strong authentication and fail using the optimized authentication SHOULD bring the issue to the attention of the operator. Further, implementations MAY wish to throttle session restarts.

It is further RECOMMENDED that BFD implementations using optimized authentication defer notifying their client that the session has reached the Up state until it has transitioned to using the optimized authentication mode. In the event where optimized authentication is failing in the protocol, this avoids propagating the failed transitions to optimized mode to the clients.

5. Optimizing Authentication YANG Model

5.1. Data Model Overview

The YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] model defined in this document augments the "ietf-bfd" module to add configuration relevant to the management of the feature defined in this document. In particular, it adds crypto algorithms that are described in this model, and in Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication [I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers]. It adds a feature statement to enable optimized authentication. Finally, it adds a flag to enable optimized authentication, an interval value that specifies how often the BFD session should be re-authenticated once it is in the Up state, and the key chain that should be used in the Up state.

5.2. Tree Diagram

The tree diagram for the YANG modules defined in this document use annotations defined in YANG Tree Diagrams. [RFC8340].

module: ietf-bfd-opt-auth

  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
            /rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh
            /bfd-ip-sh:sessions/bfd-ip-sh:session
            /bfd-ip-sh:authentication:
    +--rw reauth-interval?   uint32
  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
            /rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-mh:ip-mh
            /bfd-ip-mh:session-groups/bfd-ip-mh:session-group
            /bfd-ip-mh:authentication:
    +--rw reauth-interval?   uint32
  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
            /rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-lag:lag
            /bfd-lag:sessions/bfd-lag:session/bfd-lag:authentication:
    +--rw reauth-interval?   uint32
  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
            /rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-mpls:mpls
            /bfd-mpls:session-groups/bfd-mpls:session-group
            /bfd-mpls:authentication:
    +--rw reauth-interval?   uint32

5.3. The YANG Model

This YANG module imports YANG Key Chain [RFC8177], A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA version) [RFC8349], and YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC9314].

<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-bfd-opt-auth@2024-05-05.yang"

module ietf-bfd-opt-auth {
  yang-version 1.1;
  namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-opt-auth";
  prefix "bfdoa";

  import ietf-routing {
    prefix "rt";
    reference
      "RFC 8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
       (NMDA version)";
  }

  import ietf-bfd {
    prefix bfd;
    reference
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
       Forwarding Detection.";
  }

  import ietf-bfd-ip-sh {
    prefix bfd-ip-sh;
    reference
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
       Forwarding Detection.";
  }

  import ietf-bfd-ip-mh {
    prefix bfd-ip-mh;
    reference
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
       Forwarding Detection.";
  }

  import ietf-bfd-lag {
    prefix bfd-lag;
    reference
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
       Forwarding Detection.";
  }

  import ietf-bfd-mpls {
    prefix bfd-mpls;
    reference
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
       Forwarding Detection.";
  }

  import ietf-key-chain {
    prefix key-chain;
    reference
      "RFC 8177: YANG Key Chain.";
  }

  organization
    "IETF BFD Working Group";

  contact
    "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd>
     WG List:  <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>

     Authors: Mahesh Jethanandani (mjethanandani@gmail.com)
              Ashesh Mishra (mishra.ashesh@gmail.com)
              Ankur Saxena (ankurpsaxena@gmail.com)
              Manav Bhatia (mnvbhatia@google.com).";


  description
    "This YANG module augments the base BFD YANG model to add
     attributes related to BFD Optimized Authentication.

     Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
     authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
     without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
     the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set
     forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
     Relating to IETF Documents
     (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

     This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
     (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
     for full legal notices.

     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 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when,
     they appear in all capitals, as shown here.";

  revision "2024-05-05" {
    description
      "Initial Version.";
    reference
      "RFC XXXX: Optimizing BFD Authentication.";
  }

  feature optimized-auth {
    description
      "When enabled, this implementation supports optimized
       authentication as described in this document.";
  }

  identity null-auth {
    base key-chain:crypto-algorithm;
    description
      "BFD Null Auth type defined in this draft.";
    reference
      "RFC XXXX: BFD Stability.";
  }

  identity optimized-md5-meticulous-keyed-isaac {
    base key-chain:crypto-algorithm;
    description
      "BFD Optimized Authentication using Meticulous Keyed MD5 as the
       strong authentication and Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Keyed as the
       'optimized' authentication.";
    reference
      "I-D.ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication:
         Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication.
       I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers:
         Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication.";
  }

  identity optimized-sha1-meticulous-keyed-isaac {
    base key-chain:crypto-algorithm;
    description
      "BFD Optimized Authentication using Meticulous Keyed SHA-1 as
      the strong authentication and Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Keyed as
      the 'optimized' authentication.";
    reference
      "I-D.ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication:
         Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication.
       I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers:
         Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication.";
  }


  augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols" +
          "/rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh" +
          "/bfd-ip-sh:sessions/bfd-ip-sh:session" +
          "/bfd-ip-sh:authentication" {
    leaf reauth-interval {
      type uint32;
      units "seconds";
      default "60";
      description
        "Interval of time after which a strong authentication
         should be enabled to prevent an on-path-attacker attack.
         Default is 1 minute.

         A value of zero means that we do not do periodic
         re-authorization using strong authentication.

         This value SHOULD have jitter applied to it to avoid
         self-synchronization during expensive authentication
         operations.";
    }

    description
      "Augment the 'authentication' container in BFD module to
       add attributes related to BFD optimized authentication.";
  }

  augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" +
          "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-mh:ip-mh/" +
          "bfd-ip-mh:session-groups/bfd-ip-mh:session-group/" +
          "bfd-ip-mh:authentication" {
    leaf reauth-interval {
      type uint32;
      units "seconds";
      default "60";
      description
        "Interval of time after which a strong authentication
         should be enabled to prevent an on-path attacker attack.
         Default is 1 minute.

         A value of zero means that we do not do periodic
         re-authorization using strong authentication.

         This value SHOULD have jitter applied to it to avoid
         self-synchronization during expensive authentication
         operations.";
    }

    description
      "Augment the 'authentication' container in BFD module to
       add attributes related to BFD optimized authentication.";
  }

  augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" +
          "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-lag:lag/" +
          "bfd-lag:sessions/bfd-lag:session/" +
          "bfd-lag:authentication" {
    leaf reauth-interval {
      type uint32;
      units "seconds";
      default "60";
      description
        "Interval of time after which a strong authentication
         should be enabled to prevent an on-path attacker attack.
         Default is 1 minute.

         A value of zero means that we do not do periodic
         re-authorization using strong authentication.

         This value SHOULD have jitter applied to it to avoid
         self-synchronization during expensive authentication
         operations.";
    }

    description
      "Augment the 'authentication' container in BFD module to
       add attributes related to BFD optimized authentication.";
  }

  augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" +
          "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-mpls:mpls/" +
          "bfd-mpls:session-groups/bfd-mpls:session-group/" +
          "bfd-mpls:authentication" {
    leaf reauth-interval {
      type uint32;
      units "seconds";
      default "60";
      description
        "Interval of time after which a strong authentication
         should be enabled to prevent an on-path attacker attack.
         Default is 1 minute.

         A value of zero means that we do not do periodic
         re-authorization using strong authentication.

         This value SHOULD have jitter applied to it to avoid
         self-synchronization during expensive authentication
         operations.";
    }

    description
      "Augment the 'authentication' container in BFD module to
       add attributes related to BFD optimized authentication.";
  }
}

<CODE ENDS>

6. IANA Considerations

This documents requests two new authentication types, one URI, one YANG model, and an update to an existing IANA YANG model.

6.1. Auth Type

This document requests an update to the registry titled "BFD Authentication Types". IANA is requested to assign two new BFD AuthType:

6.2. IETF XML Registry

This document registers one URIs in the "ns" subregistry of the "IETF XML" registry [RFC3688]. Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration is requested:


URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-opt-auth
Registrant Contact: The IESG
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

6.3. The YANG Module Names Registry

This document registers one YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. Following the format in [RFC6020], the following registrations are requested:


name:         ietf-bfd-opt-auth
namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-opt-auth
prefix:       bfdoa
reference:    RFC XXXX

6.4. Updated IANA Module

This document also requests an update to an existing IANA YANG module described in Updated BFD IANA Module (Appendix A)

7. Security Considerations

The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC8446]. The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol operations and content.

There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config) to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations. Some of the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability are described here.

Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or notification) to these data nodes.

There are no read-only data nodes defined in this model.

Some of the RPC operations in this YANG module may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to control access to these operations.

There are no RPC operations defined in this model.

The approach described in this document enhances the ability to authenticate a BFD session by taking away the onerous requirement that every BFD control packet be authenticated. By authenticating packets that affect the state of the session, the security of the BFD session is maintained. In this mode, packets that are a significant change but are not authenticated, are dropped by the system. Therefore, a malicious user that tries to inject a non-authenticated packet; e.g. with a Down state to take a session down will fail. That combined with the proposal of using sequence number defined in Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication [I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers] further enhances the security of BFD sessions.

8. Contributors

The authors of this document would like to acknowledge Reshad Rehman as a contributor to this document.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers]
DeKok, A., Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Mishra, A., and A. Saxena, "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC for BFD Authentication", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-13, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers-13>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688]
Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5880]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC6020]
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241]
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242]
Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC7950]
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8177]
Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J. Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177, DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>.
[RFC8340]
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
[RFC8341]
Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8349]
Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349, DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8349>.
[RFC8446]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC9127]
Rahman, R., Ed., Zheng, L., Ed., Jethanandani, M., Ed., Pallagatti, S., and G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 9127, DOI 10.17487/RFC9127, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9127>.
[RFC9314]
Jethanandani, M., Ed., Rahman, R., Ed., Zheng, L., Ed., Pallagatti, S., and G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 9314, DOI 10.17487/RFC9314, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9314>.

9.2. Informative References

[RFC1321]
Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, DOI 10.17487/RFC1321, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1321>.
[RFC6151]
Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms", RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6151>.
[RFC6194]
Polk, T., Chen, L., Turner, S., and P. Hoffman, "Security Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest Algorithms", RFC 6194, DOI 10.17487/RFC6194, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6194>.
[SHA-1-attack1]
Wang, X., Yin, Y., and H. Yu, "Finding Collisions in the Full SHA-1", .
[SHA-1-attack2]
Wang, X., Yao, A., and F. Yao, "New Collision Search for SHA-1", .

Appendix A. Updated BFD IANA Module

This section carries the updated IANA BFD Module, iana-bfd-types.yang module, first defined in YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forward Detection (BFD) [RFC9127]. The updated module carries three new authentication type enum definitions, 'null' with a suggested value of 6, and 'optimized-md5-meticulous-keyed-isaac' with a suggested value of 7, and 'optimized-sha1-meticulous-keyed-isaac' with a suggested value of 8. This module should replace the version that currently exists in the IANA registry.

<CODE BEGINS> file "iana-bfd-types@2024-05-05.yang"

module iana-bfd-types {
  yang-version 1.1;
  namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-bfd-types";
  prefix iana-bfd-types;

  organization
    "IANA";
  contact
    "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

     Postal: ICANN
             12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
             Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
             United States of America
     Tel:    +1 310 301 5800
     <mailto:iana@iana.org>";
  description
    "This module defines YANG data types for IANA-registered
     BFD parameters.

     This YANG module is maintained by IANA and reflects the
     'BFD Diagnostic Codes' and 'BFD Authentication Types'
     registries.

     Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
     authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
     without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
     the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
     forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
     Relating to IETF Documents
     (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

     This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9127; see the
     RFC itself for full legal notices.";
  reference
    "RFC 9127: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
     Detection (BFD)";

  revision 2024-05-05 {
    description
      "Add NULL and Meticulous ISAAC authentication type.";
    reference
      "I-D.ietf-bfd-optimized-auth: Optimizing BFD Authentication.";
  }

  revision 2021-10-21 {
    description
      "Initial revision.";
    reference
      "RFC 9127: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
       Detection (BFD)";
  }

  /*
   * Type definitions
   */

  typedef diagnostic {
    type enumeration {
      enum none {
        value 0;
        description
          "No Diagnostic.";
      }
      enum control-expiry {
        value 1;
        description
          "Control Detection Time Expired.";
      }
      enum echo-failed {
        value 2;
        description
          "Echo Function Failed.";
      }
      enum neighbor-down {
        value 3;
        description
          "Neighbor Signaled Session Down.";
      }
      enum forwarding-reset {
        value 4;
        description
          "Forwarding Plane Reset.";
      }
      enum path-down {
        value 5;
        description
          "Path Down.";
      }
      enum concatenated-path-down {
        value 6;
        description
          "Concatenated Path Down.";
      }
      enum admin-down {
        value 7;
        description
          "Administratively Down.";
      }
      enum reverse-concatenated-path-down {
        value 8;
        description
          "Reverse Concatenated Path Down.";
      }
      enum mis-connectivity-defect {
        value 9;
        description
          "Mis-connectivity defect.";
        reference
          "RFC 5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
           RFC 6428: Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity
           Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS
           Transport Profile";
      }
    }
    description
      "BFD diagnostic codes as defined in RFC 5880.  Values are
       maintained in the 'BFD Diagnostic Codes' IANA registry.
       Range is 0 to 31.";
    reference
      "RFC 5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)";
  }

  typedef auth-type {
    type enumeration {
      enum reserved {
        value 0;
        description
          "Reserved.";
      }
      enum simple-password {
        value 1;
        description
          "Simple Password.";
      }
      enum keyed-md5 {
        value 2;
        description
          "Keyed MD5.";
      }
      enum meticulous-keyed-md5 {
        value 3;
        description
          "Meticulous Keyed MD5.";
      }
      enum keyed-sha1 {
        value 4;
        description
          "Keyed SHA1.";
      }
      enum meticulous-keyed-sha1 {
        value 5;
        description
          "Meticulous Keyed SHA1.";
      }
      enum null {
        value 6;
        description
          "NULL Auth.";
      }
      enum optimized-md5-meticulous-keyed-isaac {
        value 7;
        description
          "BFD Optimized Authentication using Meticulous Keyed
           MD5 as the strong authentication and Meticulous Keyed
           ISAAC as the 'optimized' authentication.";
      }
      enum optimized-sha1-meticulous-keyed-isaac {
        value 8;
        description
          "BFD Optimized Authentication using Meticulous Keyed
           SHA-1 as the strong authentication and Meticulous Keyed
           ISAAC as the 'optimized' authentication.";
      }
    }
    description
      "BFD authentication type as defined in RFC 5880.  Values are
       maintained in the 'BFD Authentication Types' IANA registry.
       Range is 0 to 255.";
    reference
      "RFC 5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)";
  }
}

<CODE ENDS>

Appendix B. Examples

This section tries to show some examples in how the model can be configured.

B.1. Single Hop BFD Configuration

This example demonstrates how a Single Hop BFD session can be configured for optimized authentication.

=============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ===============

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<key-chains
    xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-key-chain">
  <key-chain>
    <name>bfd-auth-config</name>
    <description>"An example for BFD Optimized Auth configuration."\
</description>
    <key>
      <key-id>55</key-id>
      <lifetime>
        <send-lifetime>
          <start-date-time>2017-01-01T00:00:00Z</start-date-time>
          <end-date-time>2017-02-01T00:00:00Z</end-date-time>
        </send-lifetime>
        <accept-lifetime>
          <start-date-time>2016-12-31T23:59:55Z</start-date-time>
          <end-date-time>2017-02-01T00:00:05Z</end-date-time>
        </accept-lifetime>
      </lifetime>
      <crypto-algorithm xmlns:opt-auth=
      "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-opt-auth">opt-auth:opti\
mized-sha1-meticulous-keyed-isaac</crypto-algorithm>
      <key-string>
        <keystring>testvector</keystring>
      </key-string>
    </key>
  </key-chain>
</key-chains>
<interfaces
    xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
    xmlns:if-type="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type">
  <interface>
    <name>eth0</name>
    <type>if-type:ethernetCsmacd</type>
  </interface>
</interfaces>
<routing
    xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing"
    xmlns:bfd-types="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-types"
    xmlns:iana-bfd-types="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-bfd-type\
s"
    xmlns:opt-auth="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-opt-auth">
  <control-plane-protocols>
    <control-plane-protocol>
      <type>bfd-types:bfdv1</type>
      <name>name:BFD</name>
      <bfd xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd">
        <ip-sh xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-ip-sh">
          <sessions>
            <session>
              <interface>eth0</interface>
              <dest-addr>2001:db8:0:113::101</dest-addr>
              <desired-min-tx-interval>10000</desired-min-tx-interv\
al>
              <required-min-rx-interval>
                10000
              </required-min-rx-interval>
              <authentication>
                <opt-auth:reauth-interval>30</opt-auth:reauth-inter\
val>
              </authentication>
            </session>
          </sessions>
        </ip-sh>
      </bfd>
    </control-plane-protocol>
  </control-plane-protocols>
</routing>

Authors' Addresses

Mahesh Jethanandani
Kloud Services
United States of America
Ashesh Mishra
Aalyria Technologies
Ankur Saxena
Ciena Corporation
3939 N 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Manav Bhatia
Google
Doddanekkundi
Bangalore 560048
India
Jeffrey Haas
Juniper Networks