Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 5858

IPsec Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec

Pages: 15
Proposed Standard

Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        E. Ertekin
Request for Comments: 5858                                   C. Christou
Category: Standards Track                            Booz Allen Hamilton
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               C. Bormann
                                                 Universitaet Bremen TZI
                                                                May 2010

    IPsec Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec


Integrating Robust Header Compression (ROHC) with IPsec (ROHCoIPsec) offers the combined benefits of IP security services and efficient bandwidth utilization. However, in order to integrate ROHC with IPsec, extensions to the Security Policy Database (SPD) and Security Association Database (SAD) are required. This document describes the IPsec extensions required to support ROHCoIPsec. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   ( 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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................3 2. Terminology .....................................................3 3. Extensions to IPsec Databases ...................................3 3.1. Security Policy Database (SPD) .............................4 3.2. Security Association Database (SAD) ........................5 4. Extensions to IPsec Processing ..................................6 4.1. Identification of Header-Compressed Traffic ................6 4.2. Verifying the Integrity of Decompressed Packet Headers .....6 4.2.1. ICV Computation and Integrity Verification ..........7 4.3. ROHC Segmentation and IPsec Tunnel MTU .....................8 4.4. Nested IPComp and ROHCoIPsec Processing ....................9 5. Security Considerations ........................................10 6. IANA Considerations ............................................10 7. Acknowledgments ................................................11 Appendix A. ASN.1 Representation for ROHCoIPsec ...................12 8. References .....................................................14 8.1. Normative References ......................................14 8.2. Informative References ....................................14
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 3

1. Introduction

Using IPsec ([IPSEC]) protection offers various security services for IP traffic. However, these benefits come at the cost of additional packet headers, which increase packet overhead. By compressing the inner headers of these packets, the integration of Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [ROHC]) with IPsec (ROHCoIPsec, [ROHCOIPSEC]) can reduce the packet overhead associated with IPsec-protected flows. IPsec-protected traffic is carried over Security Associations (SAs), whose parameters are negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The Security Policy Database (SPD) specifies the services that are to be offered to IP datagrams, and the parameters associated with SAs that have been established are stored in the Security Association Database (SAD). For ROHCoIPsec, various extensions to the SPD and SAD that incorporate ROHC-relevant parameters are required. In addition, three extensions to IPsec processing are required. First, a mechanism for identifying ROHC packets must be defined. Second, a mechanism to ensure the integrity of the decompressed packet is needed. Finally, the order of the inbound and outbound processing must be enumerated when nesting IP Compression (IPComp [IPCOMP]), ROHC, and IPsec processing.

2. Terminology

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 RFC 2119 [BRA97].

3. Extensions to IPsec Databases

The following subsections specify extensions to the SPD and the SAD that MUST be supported for ROHCoIPsec. The ROHCoIPsec fields in the SPD are used to populate the ROHCoIPsec parameters in the SAD during the initialization or rekey of a child SA. It is noted that these extensions do not have any implications on existing SPD fields or SAD parameters. Therefore, a ROHCoIPsec implementation is backwards-compatible with an IPsec implementation that does not support header compression. Appendix A provides an example ASN.1 representation of an SPD that is extended to support ROHC.
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 4

3.1. Security Policy Database (SPD)

In general, the SPD is responsible for specifying the security services that are offered to IP datagrams. Entries in the SPD specify how to derive the corresponding values for SAD entries. To support ROHC, the SPD is extended to include per-channel ROHC parameters. Together, the existing IPsec SPD parameters and the ROHC parameters will dictate the security and header compression services that are provided to packets. The fields contained within each SPD entry are defined in RFC 4301 [IPSEC], Section To support ROHC, several processing info fields are added to the SPD; these fields contain information regarding the ROHC profiles and channel parameters supported by the local ROHC instance. If the processing action associated with the selector sets is PROTECT, then the processing info must be extended with the following ROHC channel parameters: MAX_CID: This field indicates the highest context ID that will be decompressed by the local decompressor. MAX_CID MUST be at least 0 and at most 16383 (the value 0 implies having one context). MRRU: The MRRU parameter indicates the size of the largest reconstructed unit (in octets) that the local decompressor is expected to reassemble from ROHC segments. This size includes the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) and the ROHC Integrity Check Value (ICV). NOTE: Since in-order delivery of ROHC packets cannot be guaranteed, the MRRU parameter SHOULD be set to 0 (as stated in Section of RFC 5795 [ROHC] and Section 6.1 of RFC 5225 [ROHCV2]), which indicates that no segment headers are allowed on the ROHCoIPsec channel. PROFILES: This field is a list of ROHC profiles supported by the local decompressor. Possible values for this list are contained in the "RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Profile Identifiers" registry [ROHCPROF]. In addition to these ROHC channel parameters, a ROHC integrity algorithm and a ROHC ICV Length field MUST be included within the SPD: ROHC INTEGRITY ALGORITHM: This field is a list of integrity algorithms supported by the ROHCoIPsec instance. This will be used by the ROHC process to ensure that packet headers are properly decompressed (see Section 4.2). Authentication algorithms that MUST be supported are specified in the
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 5
      "Authentication Algorithms" table in Section 3.1.1 ("ESP
      Encryption and Authentication Algorithms") of RFC 4835
      [CRYPTO-ALG] (or its successor).

      ROHC ICV LENGTH: This field specifies the length of the ICV that
      is used in conjunction with the ROHC integrity algorithm.

   Several other ROHC channel parameters are omitted from the SPD,
   because they are set implicitly.  The omitted channel parameters are
   LARGE_CIDS and FEEDBACK_FOR.  The LARGE_CIDS channel parameter MUST
   be set based on the value of MAX_CID (i.e., if MAX_CID is <= 15,
   LARGE_CIDS is assumed to be 0).  Finally, the ROHC FEEDBACK_FOR
   channel parameter MUST be set to the ROHC channel associated with the
   SA in the reverse direction.  If an SA in the reverse direction does
   not exist, the FEEDBACK_FOR channel parameter is not set, and ROHC
   MUST NOT operate in bi-directional Mode.

3.2. Security Association Database (SAD)

Each entry within the SAD defines the parameters associated with each established SA. Unless the "populate from packet" (PFP) flag is asserted for a particular field, SAD entries are determined by the corresponding SPD entries during the creation of the SA. The data items contained within the SAD are defined in RFC 4301 [IPSEC], Section To support ROHC, the SAD must include a "ROHC Data Item"; this data item contains parameters used by ROHC instance. The ROHC Data Item exists for both inbound and outbound SAs. The ROHC Data Item includes the ROHC channel parameters for the SA. These channel parameters (i.e., MAX_CID, PROFILES, MRRU) are enumerated above in Section 3.1. For inbound SAs, the ROHC Data Item MUST specify the ROHC channel parameters that are used by the local decompressor instance; conversely, for outbound SAs, the ROHC Data Item MUST specify the ROHC channel parameters that are used by local compressor instance. In addition to these ROHC channel parameters, the ROHC Data Item for both inbound and outbound SAs MUST include three additional parameters. Specifically, these parameters store the integrity algorithm, the algorithm's respective key, and the ICV length that is used by the ROHC process (see Section 3.2). The integrity algorithm and its associated key are used to calculate a ROHC ICV of the specified length; this ICV is used to verify the packet headers post- decompression.
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 6
   Finally, for inbound SAs, the ROHC Data Item MUST include a
   FEEDBACK_FOR parameter.  The parameter is a reference to a ROHC
   channel in the opposite direction (i.e., the outbound SA) between the
   same compression endpoints.  A ROHC channel associated with an
   inbound SA and a ROHC channel associated with an outbound SA MAY be
   coupled to form a bi-directional ROHC channel as defined in Sections
   6.1 and 6.2 in RFC 3759 [ROHC-TERM].

   "ROHC Data Item" values MAY be initialized manually (i.e.,
   administratively configured for manual SAs), or initialized via a key
   exchange protocol (e.g., IKEv2 [IKEV2]) that has been extended to
   support the signaling of ROHC parameters [IKE-ROHC].

4. Extensions to IPsec Processing

4.1. Identification of Header-Compressed Traffic

A "ROHC" protocol identifier is used to identify header-compressed traffic on a ROHC-enabled SA. If an outbound packet has a compressed header, the Next Header field of the security protocol header (e.g., Authentication Header (AH) [AH], Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [ESP]) MUST be set to the "ROHC" protocol identifier. If the packet header has not been compressed by ROHC, the Next Header field does not contain the "ROHC" protocol identifier. Conversely, for an inbound packet, the value of the security protocol Next Header field MUST be checked to determine if the packet includes a ROHC header, in order to determine if it requires ROHC decompression. Use of the "ROHC" protocol identifier for purposes other than ROHCoIPsec is currently not defined. Future protocols that make use of the allocation (e.g., other applications of ROHC in multi-hop environments) require specification of the logical compression channel between the ROHC compressor and decompressor. In addition, these specifications will require the investigation of the security considerations associated with use of the "ROHC" protocol identifier outside the context of the Next Header field of security protocol headers.

4.2. Verifying the Integrity of Decompressed Packet Headers

As documented in Section 6.1.4 of [ROHCOIPSEC], ROHC is inherently a lossy compression algorithm: the consequences of significant packet reordering or loss between ROHC peers may include undetected decompression failures, where erroneous packets are forwarded into the protected domain.
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 7
   To ensure that a decompressed header is identical to the original
   header, ROHCoIPsec MAY use an additional integrity algorithm (and
   respective key) to compute a second Integrity Check Value (ICV).
   This ROHC ICV MUST be computed over the uncompressed IP header, as
   well at the higher-layer headers and the packet payload.  When
   computed, the ICV is appended to the ROHC-compressed packet.  At the
   decompressor, the decompressed packet (including the uncompressed IP
   header, higher-layer headers, and packet payload; but not including
   the authentication data) will be used with the integrity algorithm
   (and its respective key) to compute a value that will be compared to
   the appended ICV.  If these values are not identical, the
   decompressed packet MUST be dropped.

   Figure 1 illustrates the composition of a ROHCoIPsec-processed IPv4
   packet.  In the example, TCP/IP compression is applied, and the
   packet is processed with tunnel mode ESP.

          IPv4  |orig IP hdr  |     |      |
                |(any options)| TCP | Data |

         IPv4  | new IP hdr  |     | Cmpr. |    | ROHC | ESP   | ESP|
               |(any options)| ESP | Hdr.  |Data| ICV  |Trailer| ICV|

   Figure 1.  Example of a ROHCoIPsec-Processed Packet

   Note: At the decompressor, the ROHC ICV field is not included in the
   calculation of the ROHC ICV.

4.2.1. ICV Computation and Integrity Verification

In order to correctly verify the integrity of the decompressed packets, the processing steps for ROHCoIPsec MUST be implemented in a specific order, as given below. For outbound packets that are processed by ROHC and are IPsec- protected: o Compute an ICV for the uncompressed packet with the negotiated (ROHC) integrity algorithm and its respective key. o Compress the packet headers (as specified by the ROHC process).
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 8
   o  Append the ICV to the compressed packet.

   o  Apply AH or ESP processing to the packet, as specified in the
      appropriate SAD entry.

   For inbound packets that are to be decompressed by ROHC:

   o  Apply AH or ESP processing, as specified in the appropriate SAD

   o  Remove the ICV from the packet.

   o  Decompress the packet header(s).

   o  Compute an ICV for the decompressed packet with the negotiated
      (ROHC) integrity algorithm and its respective key.

   o  Compare the computed ICV to the original ICV calculated at the
      compressor: if these two values differ, the packet MUST be
      dropped; otherwise, resume IPsec processing.

4.3. ROHC Segmentation and IPsec Tunnel MTU

In certain scenarios, a ROHCoIPsec-processed packet may exceed the size of the IPsec tunnel MTU. RFC 4301 [IPSEC] currently stipulates the following for outbound traffic that exceeds the SA Path MTU (PMTU): Case 1: Original (cleartext) packet is IPv4 and has the Don't Fragment (DF) bit set. The implementation should discard the packet and send a PMTU ICMP message. Case 2: Original (cleartext) packet is IPv4 and has the DF bit clear. The implementation should fragment (before or after encryption per its configuration) and then forward the fragments. It should not send a PMTU ICMP message. Case 3: Original (cleartext) packet is IPv6. The implementation should discard the packet and send a PMTU ICMP message. For the ROHCoIPsec processing model, there is one minor change to the procedure stated above. This change applies to pre-encryption fragmentation for Case 2. Since current ROHC compression profiles do not support compression of IP packet fragments, pre-encryption fragmentation MUST NOT occur before ROHC processing.
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 9
   If the compressed packet exceeds the SA PMTU, and the MRRU is non-
   zero, ROHC segmentation MAY be used to divide the packet, where each
   segment conforms to the tunnel MTU.  ROHC segmentation MUST occur
   before AH or ESP processing.  Because in-order delivery of ROHC
   segments is not guaranteed, the use of ROHC segmentation is not

   If segmentation is applied, the process MUST account for the
   additional overhead imposed by the IPsec process (e.g., AH or ESP
   overhead, crypto synchronization data, the additional IP header,
   etc.) such that the final IPsec-processed segments are less than the
   tunnel MTU.  After segmentation, each ROHC segment is consecutively
   processed by the appropriate security protocol (e.g., AH, ESP)
   instantiated on the ROHC-enabled SA.  Since ROHC segments are
   processed consecutively, the associated AH/ESP sequence number MUST
   be incremented by one for each segment transmitted over the ROHC
   channel.  As such, after all ROHC segments receive AH/ESP processing,
   these segments can be identified (at the remote IPsec implementation)
   by a range of contiguous AH/ESP sequence numbers.

   For channels where the MRRU is non-zero, the ROHCoIPsec decompressor
   MUST re-assemble the ROHC segments that are received.  To accomplish
   this, the decompressor MUST identify the ROHC segments (as documented
   in Section 5.2 of RFC 5795 [ROHC]), and attempt reconstruction using
   the ROHC segmentation protocol (Section 5.2.5 of RFC 5795 [ROHC]).
   To assist the reconstruction process, the AH/ESP sequence number
   SHOULD be used to identify segments that may have been subject to
   reordering.  If reconstruction fails, the packet MUST be discarded.

   As stated in Section 3.2.1, if the ROHC integrity algorithm is used
   to verify the decompression of packet headers, this ICV is appended
   to the compressed packet.  If ROHC segmentation is performed, the
   segmentation algorithm is executed on the compressed packet and the
   appended ICV.  Note that the ICV is not appended to each ROHC

   Under certain circumstances, IPsec implementations will not process
   (or receive) unprotected ICMP messages, or they will not have a Path
   MTU estimated value.  In these cases, the IPsec implementation SHOULD
   NOT attempt to segment the ROHC-compressed packet, as it does not
   have full insight into the path MTU in the unprotected domain.

4.4. Nested IPComp and ROHCoIPsec Processing

IPComp ([IPCOMP]) is another mechanism that can be implemented to reduce the size of an IP datagram. If IPComp and ROHCoIPsec are implemented in a nested fashion, the following steps MUST be followed for outbound and inbound packets.
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 10
   For outbound packets that are to be processed by IPComp and ROHC:

   o  The ICV is computed for the uncompressed packet, and the
      appropriate ROHC compression profile is applied to the packet.

   o  IPComp is applied, and the packet is sent to the IPsec process.

   o  The security protocol is applied to the packet.

   Conversely, for inbound packets that are to be both ROHC- and IPComp-

   o  A packet received on a ROHC-enabled SA is IPsec-processed.

   o  The datagram is decompressed based on the appropriate IPComp

   o  The packet is sent to the ROHC module for header decompression and
      integrity verification.

5. Security Considerations

A ROHCoIPsec implementer should consider the strength of protection provided by the integrity check algorithm used to verify decompressed headers. Failure to implement a strong integrity check algorithm increases the probability for an invalidly decompressed packet to be forwarded by a ROHCoIPsec device into a protected domain. The implementation of ROHCoIPsec may increase the susceptibility for traffic flow analysis, where an attacker can identify new traffic flows by monitoring the relative size of the encrypted packets (i.e., a group of "long" packets, followed by a long series of "short" packets may indicate a new flow for some ROHCoIPsec implementations). To mitigate this concern, ROHC padding mechanisms may be used to arbitrarily add padding to transmitted packets to randomize packet sizes. This technique, however, reduces the overall efficiency benefit offered by header compression.

6. IANA Considerations

IANA has allocated the value 142 to "ROHC" within the "Protocol Numbers" registry [PROTOCOL]. This value will be used to indicate that the next-level protocol header is a ROHC header.
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 11

7. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sean O'Keeffe, James Kohler, Linda Noone of the Department of Defense, and Rich Espy of OPnet for their contributions and support for developing this document. The authors would also like to thank Yoav Nir and Robert A Stangarone Jr.: both served as committed document reviewers for this specification. Finally, the authors would like to thank the following for their numerous reviews and comments to this document: o Magnus Westerlund o Stephen Kent o Lars-Erik Jonsson o Carl Knutsson o Pasi Eronen o Jonah Pezeshki o Tero Kivinen o Joseph Touch o Rohan Jasani o Elwyn Davies o Bert Wijnen
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 12

Appendix A. ASN.1 Representation for ROHCoIPsec

This appendix is included as an additional way to describe the ROHCoIPsec parameters that are included in the IPsec SPD. It uses portions of the ASN.1 syntax provided in Appendix C of RFC 4301 [IPSEC]. In addition, several new structures are defined. This syntax has been successfully compiled. However, it is merely illustrative and need not be employed in an implementation to achieve compliance. The "Processing" data structure, defined in Appendix C of RFC 4301, is augmented to include a ROHC parameters element as follows: Processing ::= SEQUENCE { extSeqNum BOOLEAN, -- TRUE 64 bit counter, FALSE 32 bit seqOverflow BOOLEAN, -- TRUE rekey, FALSE terminate & audit fragCheck BOOLEAN, -- TRUE stateful fragment checking, -- FALSE no stateful fragment checking lifetime SALifetime, spi ManualSPI, algorithms ProcessingAlgs, tunnel TunnelOptions OPTIONAL, rohc [7] RohcParams OPTIONAL } The following data structures describe these ROHC parameters: RohcParams ::= SEQUENCE { rohcEnabled BOOLEAN, -- TRUE, hdr compr. is enabled -- FALSE, hdr compr. is disabled maxCID INTEGER (0..16383), mrru INTEGER, profiles RohcProfiles, rohcIntegAlg RohcIntegAlgs, rohcIntegICVLength INTEGER } RohcProfiles ::= SET OF RohcProfile
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 13
       RohcProfile ::= INTEGER {
           rohcv1-rtp           (1),
           rohcv1-udp           (2),
           rohcv1-esp           (3),
           rohcv1-ip            (4),

           rohcv1-tcp           (6),
           rohcv1-rtp-udpLite   (7),
           rohcv1-udpLite       (8),

           rohcv2-rtp         (257),
           rohcv2-udp         (258),
           rohcv2-esp         (259),
           rohcv2-ip          (260),

           rohcv2-rtp-udpLite (263),
           rohcv2-udpLite     (264)

           -- values taken from [ROHCPROF]


       RohcIntegAlgs ::= SEQUENCE {
           algorithm   RohcIntegAlgType,
           parameters  ANY -- DEFINED BY algorithm -- OPTIONAL }

       RohcIntegAlgType ::= INTEGER {
           none                    (0),
           auth-HMAC-MD5-96        (1),
           auth-HMAC-SHA1-96       (2),
           auth-DES-MAC            (3),
           auth-KPDK-MD5           (4),
           auth-AES-XCBC-96        (5),
           auth-HMAC-MD5-128       (6),
           auth-HMAC-SHA1-160      (7),
           auth-AES-CMAC-96        (8),
           auth-AES-128-GMAC       (9),
           auth-AES-192-GMAC      (10),
           auth-AES-256-GMAC      (11),
           auth-HMAC-SHA2-256-128 (12),
           auth-HMAC-SHA2-384-192 (13),
           auth-HMAC-SHA2-512-256 (14)
           --  tbd (15..65535)

           -- values taken from "Transform Type 3 - Integrity
           -- Algorithm Transform IDs" at [IKEV2-PARA]

Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 14

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[IPSEC] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. [ROHC] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, March 2010. [IPCOMP] Shacham, A., Monsour, B., Pereira, R., and M. Thomas, "IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)", RFC 3173, September 2001. [BRA97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [ROHCV2] Pelletier, G. and K. Sandlund, "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite", RFC 5225, April 2008. [IKEV2] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005. [IKE-ROHC] Ertekin, E., Christou, C., Jasani, R., Kivinen, T., and C. Bormann, "IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec", RFC 5857, May 2010. [AH] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December 2005. [ESP] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, December 2005.

8.2. Informative References

[ROHCOIPSEC] Ertekin, E., Jasani, R., Christou, C., and C. Bormann, "Integration of Header Compression over IPsec Security Associations", RFC 5856, May 2010. [ROHCPROF] IANA, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Profile Identifiers", <>. [CRYPTO-ALG] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.
Top   ToC   RFC5858 - Page 15
   [ROHC-TERM]   Jonsson, L-E., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC):
                 Terminology and Channel Mapping Examples", RFC 3759,
                 April 2004.

   [PROTOCOL]    IANA, "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers",

   [IKEV2-PARA]  IANA, "Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)
                 Parameters", <>.

Authors' Addresses

Emre Ertekin Booz Allen Hamilton 5220 Pacific Concourse Drive, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90045 US EMail: Chris Christou Booz Allen Hamilton 13200 Woodland Park Dr. Herndon, VA 20171 US EMail: Carsten Bormann Universitaet Bremen TZI Postfach 330440 Bremen D-28334 Germany EMail: