| IETF CIPSO Working Group | |
| 16 July, 1992 | |
| COMMERCIAL IP SECURITY OPTION (CIPSO 2.2) | |
| 1. Status | |
| This Internet Draft provides the high level specification for a Commercial | |
| IP Security Option (CIPSO). This draft reflects the version as approved by | |
| the CIPSO IETF Working Group. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. | |
| This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working documents | |
| of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and its Working | |
| Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as | |
| Internet Drafts. | |
| Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months. | |
| Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents | |
| at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference | |
| material or to cite them other than as a "working draft" or "work in | |
| progress." | |
| Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet Draft | |
| directory to learn the current status of this or any other Internet Draft. | |
| 2. Background | |
| Currently the Internet Protocol includes two security options. One of | |
| these options is the DoD Basic Security Option (BSO) (Type 130) which allows | |
| IP datagrams to be labeled with security classifications. This option | |
| provides sixteen security classifications and a variable number of handling | |
| restrictions. To handle additional security information, such as security | |
| categories or compartments, another security option (Type 133) exists and | |
| is referred to as the DoD Extended Security Option (ESO). The values for | |
| the fixed fields within these two options are administered by the Defense | |
| Information Systems Agency (DISA). | |
| Computer vendors are now building commercial operating systems with | |
| mandatory access controls and multi-level security. These systems are | |
| no longer built specifically for a particular group in the defense or | |
| intelligence communities. They are generally available commercial systems | |
| for use in a variety of government and civil sector environments. | |
| The small number of ESO format codes can not support all the possible | |
| applications of a commercial security option. The BSO and ESO were | |
| designed to only support the United States DoD. CIPSO has been designed | |
| to support multiple security policies. This Internet Draft provides the | |
| format and procedures required to support a Mandatory Access Control | |
| security policy. Support for additional security policies shall be | |
| defined in future RFCs. | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 1] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| 3. CIPSO Format | |
| Option type: 134 (Class 0, Number 6, Copy on Fragmentation) | |
| Option length: Variable | |
| This option permits security related information to be passed between | |
| systems within a single Domain of Interpretation (DOI). A DOI is a | |
| collection of systems which agree on the meaning of particular values | |
| in the security option. An authority that has been assigned a DOI | |
| identifier will define a mapping between appropriate CIPSO field values | |
| and their human readable equivalent. This authority will distribute that | |
| mapping to hosts within the authority's domain. These mappings may be | |
| sensitive, therefore a DOI authority is not required to make these | |
| mappings available to anyone other than the systems that are included in | |
| the DOI. | |
| This option MUST be copied on fragmentation. This option appears at most | |
| once in a datagram. All multi-octet fields in the option are defined to be | |
| transmitted in network byte order. The format of this option is as follows: | |
| +----------+----------+------//------+-----------//---------+ | |
| | 10000110 | LLLLLLLL | DDDDDDDDDDDD | TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT | | |
| +----------+----------+------//------+-----------//---------+ | |
| TYPE=134 OPTION DOMAIN OF TAGS | |
| LENGTH INTERPRETATION | |
| Figure 1. CIPSO Format | |
| 3.1 Type | |
| This field is 1 octet in length. Its value is 134. | |
| 3.2 Length | |
| This field is 1 octet in length. It is the total length of the option | |
| including the type and length fields. With the current IP header length | |
| restriction of 40 octets the value of this field MUST not exceed 40. | |
| 3.3 Domain of Interpretation Identifier | |
| This field is an unsigned 32 bit integer. The value 0 is reserved and MUST | |
| not appear as the DOI identifier in any CIPSO option. Implementations | |
| should assume that the DOI identifier field is not aligned on any particular | |
| byte boundary. | |
| To conserve space in the protocol, security levels and categories are | |
| represented by numbers rather than their ASCII equivalent. This requires | |
| a mapping table within CIPSO hosts to map these numbers to their | |
| corresponding ASCII representations. Non-related groups of systems may | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 2] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| have their own unique mappings. For example, one group of systems may | |
| use the number 5 to represent Unclassified while another group may use the | |
| number 1 to represent that same security level. The DOI identifier is used | |
| to identify which mapping was used for the values within the option. | |
| 3.4 Tag Types | |
| A common format for passing security related information is necessary | |
| for interoperability. CIPSO uses sets of "tags" to contain the security | |
| information relevant to the data in the IP packet. Each tag begins with | |
| a tag type identifier followed by the length of the tag and ends with the | |
| actual security information to be passed. All multi-octet fields in a tag | |
| are defined to be transmitted in network byte order. Like the DOI | |
| identifier field in the CIPSO header, implementations should assume that | |
| all tags, as well as fields within a tag, are not aligned on any particular | |
| octet boundary. The tag types defined in this document contain alignment | |
| bytes to assist alignment of some information, however alignment can not | |
| be guaranteed if CIPSO is not the first IP option. | |
| CIPSO tag types 0 through 127 are reserved for defining standard tag | |
| formats. Their definitions will be published in RFCs. Tag types whose | |
| identifiers are greater than 127 are defined by the DOI authority and may | |
| only be meaningful in certain Domains of Interpretation. For these tag | |
| types, implementations will require the DOI identifier as well as the tag | |
| number to determine the security policy and the format associated with the | |
| tag. Use of tag types above 127 are restricted to closed networks where | |
| interoperability with other networks will not be an issue. Implementations | |
| that support a tag type greater than 127 MUST support at least one DOI that | |
| requires only tag types 1 to 127. | |
| Tag type 0 is reserved. Tag types 1, 2, and 5 are defined in this | |
| Internet Draft. Types 3 and 4 are reserved for work in progress. | |
| The standard format for all current and future CIPSO tags is shown below: | |
| +----------+----------+--------//--------+ | |
| | TTTTTTTT | LLLLLLLL | IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII | | |
| +----------+----------+--------//--------+ | |
| TAG TAG TAG | |
| TYPE LENGTH INFORMATION | |
| Figure 2: Standard Tag Format | |
| In the three tag types described in this document, the length and count | |
| restrictions are based on the current IP limitation of 40 octets for all | |
| IP options. If the IP header is later expanded, then the length and count | |
| restrictions specified in this document may increase to use the full area | |
| provided for IP options. | |
| 3.4.1 Tag Type Classes | |
| Tag classes consist of tag types that have common processing requirements | |
| and support the same security policy. The three tags defined in this | |
| Internet Draft belong to the Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Sensitivity | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 3] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| class and support the MAC Sensitivity security policy. | |
| 3.4.2 Tag Type 1 | |
| This is referred to as the "bit-mapped" tag type. Tag type 1 is included | |
| in the MAC Sensitivity tag type class. The format of this tag type is as | |
| follows: | |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+--------//---------+ | |
| | 00000001 | LLLLLLLL | 00000000 | LLLLLLLL | CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC | | |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+--------//---------+ | |
| TAG TAG ALIGNMENT SENSITIVITY BIT MAP OF | |
| TYPE LENGTH OCTET LEVEL CATEGORIES | |
| Figure 3. Tag Type 1 Format | |
| 3.4.2.1 Tag Type | |
| This field is 1 octet in length and has a value of 1. | |
| 3.4.2.2 Tag Length | |
| This field is 1 octet in length. It is the total length of the tag type | |
| including the type and length fields. With the current IP header length | |
| restriction of 40 bytes the value within this field is between 4 and 34. | |
| 3.4.2.3 Alignment Octet | |
| This field is 1 octet in length and always has the value of 0. Its purpose | |
| is to align the category bitmap field on an even octet boundary. This will | |
| speed many implementations including router implementations. | |
| 3.4.2.4 Sensitivity Level | |
| This field is 1 octet in length. Its value is from 0 to 255. The values | |
| are ordered with 0 being the minimum value and 255 representing the maximum | |
| value. | |
| 3.4.2.5 Bit Map of Categories | |
| The length of this field is variable and ranges from 0 to 30 octets. This | |
| provides representation of categories 0 to 239. The ordering of the bits | |
| is left to right or MSB to LSB. For example category 0 is represented by | |
| the most significant bit of the first byte and category 15 is represented | |
| by the least significant bit of the second byte. Figure 4 graphically | |
| shows this ordering. Bit N is binary 1 if category N is part of the label | |
| for the datagram, and bit N is binary 0 if category N is not part of the | |
| label. Except for the optimized tag 1 format described in the next section, | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 4] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| minimal encoding SHOULD be used resulting in no trailing zero octets in the | |
| category bitmap. | |
| octet 0 octet 1 octet 2 octet 3 octet 4 octet 5 | |
| XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX . . . | |
| bit 01234567 89111111 11112222 22222233 33333333 44444444 | |
| number 012345 67890123 45678901 23456789 01234567 | |
| Figure 4. Ordering of Bits in Tag 1 Bit Map | |
| 3.4.2.6 Optimized Tag 1 Format | |
| Routers work most efficiently when processing fixed length fields. To | |
| support these routers there is an optimized form of tag type 1. The format | |
| does not change. The only change is to the category bitmap which is set to | |
| a constant length of 10 octets. Trailing octets required to fill out the 10 | |
| octets are zero filled. Ten octets, allowing for 80 categories, was chosen | |
| because it makes the total length of the CIPSO option 20 octets. If CIPSO | |
| is the only option then the option will be full word aligned and additional | |
| filler octets will not be required. | |
| 3.4.3 Tag Type 2 | |
| This is referred to as the "enumerated" tag type. It is used to describe | |
| large but sparsely populated sets of categories. Tag type 2 is in the MAC | |
| Sensitivity tag type class. The format of this tag type is as follows: | |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+-------------//-------------+ | |
| | 00000010 | LLLLLLLL | 00000000 | LLLLLLLL | CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC | | |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+-------------//-------------+ | |
| TAG TAG ALIGNMENT SENSITIVITY ENUMERATED | |
| TYPE LENGTH OCTET LEVEL CATEGORIES | |
| Figure 5. Tag Type 2 Format | |
| 3.4.3.1 Tag Type | |
| This field is one octet in length and has a value of 2. | |
| 3.4.3.2 Tag Length | |
| This field is 1 octet in length. It is the total length of the tag type | |
| including the type and length fields. With the current IP header length | |
| restriction of 40 bytes the value within this field is between 4 and 34. | |
| 3.4.3.3 Alignment Octet | |
| This field is 1 octet in length and always has the value of 0. Its purpose | |
| is to align the category field on an even octet boundary. This will | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 5] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| speed many implementations including router implementations. | |
| 3.4.3.4 Sensitivity Level | |
| This field is 1 octet in length. Its value is from 0 to 255. The values | |
| are ordered with 0 being the minimum value and 255 representing the | |
| maximum value. | |
| 3.4.3.5 Enumerated Categories | |
| In this tag, categories are represented by their actual value rather than | |
| by their position within a bit field. The length of each category is 2 | |
| octets. Up to 15 categories may be represented by this tag. Valid values | |
| for categories are 0 to 65534. Category 65535 is not a valid category | |
| value. The categories MUST be listed in ascending order within the tag. | |
| 3.4.4 Tag Type 5 | |
| This is referred to as the "range" tag type. It is used to represent | |
| labels where all categories in a range, or set of ranges, are included | |
| in the sensitivity label. Tag type 5 is in the MAC Sensitivity tag type | |
| class. The format of this tag type is as follows: | |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+------------//-------------+ | |
| | 00000101 | LLLLLLLL | 00000000 | LLLLLLLL | Top/Bottom | Top/Bottom | | |
| +----------+----------+----------+----------+------------//-------------+ | |
| TAG TAG ALIGNMENT SENSITIVITY CATEGORY RANGES | |
| TYPE LENGTH OCTET LEVEL | |
| Figure 6. Tag Type 5 Format | |
| 3.4.4.1 Tag Type | |
| This field is one octet in length and has a value of 5. | |
| 3.4.4.2 Tag Length | |
| This field is 1 octet in length. It is the total length of the tag type | |
| including the type and length fields. With the current IP header length | |
| restriction of 40 bytes the value within this field is between 4 and 34. | |
| 3.4.4.3 Alignment Octet | |
| This field is 1 octet in length and always has the value of 0. Its purpose | |
| is to align the category range field on an even octet boundary. This will | |
| speed many implementations including router implementations. | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 6] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| 3.4.4.4 Sensitivity Level | |
| This field is 1 octet in length. Its value is from 0 to 255. The values | |
| are ordered with 0 being the minimum value and 255 representing the maximum | |
| value. | |
| 3.4.4.5 Category Ranges | |
| A category range is a 4 octet field comprised of the 2 octet index of the | |
| highest numbered category followed by the 2 octet index of the lowest | |
| numbered category. These range endpoints are inclusive within the range of | |
| categories. All categories within a range are included in the sensitivity | |
| label. This tag may contain a maximum of 7 category pairs. The bottom | |
| category endpoint for the last pair in the tag MAY be omitted and SHOULD be | |
| assumed to be 0. The ranges MUST be non-overlapping and be listed in | |
| descending order. Valid values for categories are 0 to 65534. Category | |
| 65535 is not a valid category value. | |
| 3.4.5 Minimum Requirements | |
| A CIPSO implementation MUST be capable of generating at least tag type 1 in | |
| the non-optimized form. In addition, a CIPSO implementation MUST be able | |
| to receive any valid tag type 1 even those using the optimized tag type 1 | |
| format. | |
| 4. Configuration Parameters | |
| The configuration parameters defined below are required for all CIPSO hosts, | |
| gateways, and routers that support multiple sensitivity labels. A CIPSO | |
| host is defined to be the origination or destination system for an IP | |
| datagram. A CIPSO gateway provides IP routing services between two or more | |
| IP networks and may be required to perform label translations between | |
| networks. A CIPSO gateway may be an enhanced CIPSO host or it may just | |
| provide gateway services with no end system CIPSO capabilities. A CIPSO | |
| router is a dedicated IP router that routes IP datagrams between two or more | |
| IP networks. | |
| An implementation of CIPSO on a host MUST have the capability to reject a | |
| datagram for reasons that the information contained can not be adequately | |
| protected by the receiving host or if acceptance may result in violation of | |
| the host or network security policy. In addition, a CIPSO gateway or router | |
| MUST be able to reject datagrams going to networks that can not provide | |
| adequate protection or may violate the network's security policy. To | |
| provide this capability the following minimal set of configuration | |
| parameters are required for CIPSO implementations: | |
| HOST_LABEL_MAX - This parameter contains the maximum sensitivity label that | |
| a CIPSO host is authorized to handle. All datagrams that have a label | |
| greater than this maximum MUST be rejected by the CIPSO host. This | |
| parameter does not apply to CIPSO gateways or routers. This parameter need | |
| not be defined explicitly as it can be implicitly derived from the | |
| PORT_LABEL_MAX parameters for the associated interfaces. | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 7] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| HOST_LABEL_MIN - This parameter contains the minimum sensitivity label that | |
| a CIPSO host is authorized to handle. All datagrams that have a label less | |
| than this minimum MUST be rejected by the CIPSO host. This parameter does | |
| not apply to CIPSO gateways or routers. This parameter need not be defined | |
| explicitly as it can be implicitly derived from the PORT_LABEL_MIN | |
| parameters for the associated interfaces. | |
| PORT_LABEL_MAX - This parameter contains the maximum sensitivity label for | |
| all datagrams that may exit a particular network interface port. All | |
| outgoing datagrams that have a label greater than this maximum MUST be | |
| rejected by the CIPSO system. The label within this parameter MUST be | |
| less than or equal to the label within the HOST_LABEL_MAX parameter. This | |
| parameter does not apply to CIPSO hosts that support only one network port. | |
| PORT_LABEL_MIN - This parameter contains the minimum sensitivity label for | |
| all datagrams that may exit a particular network interface port. All | |
| outgoing datagrams that have a label less than this minimum MUST be | |
| rejected by the CIPSO system. The label within this parameter MUST be | |
| greater than or equal to the label within the HOST_LABEL_MIN parameter. | |
| This parameter does not apply to CIPSO hosts that support only one network | |
| port. | |
| PORT_DOI - This parameter is used to assign a DOI identifier value to a | |
| particular network interface port. All CIPSO labels within datagrams | |
| going out this port MUST use the specified DOI identifier. All CIPSO | |
| hosts and gateways MUST support either this parameter, the NET_DOI | |
| parameter, or the HOST_DOI parameter. | |
| NET_DOI - This parameter is used to assign a DOI identifier value to a | |
| particular IP network address. All CIPSO labels within datagrams destined | |
| for the particular IP network MUST use the specified DOI identifier. All | |
| CIPSO hosts and gateways MUST support either this parameter, the PORT_DOI | |
| parameter, or the HOST_DOI parameter. | |
| HOST_DOI - This parameter is used to assign a DOI identifier value to a | |
| particular IP host address. All CIPSO labels within datagrams destined for | |
| the particular IP host will use the specified DOI identifier. All CIPSO | |
| hosts and gateways MUST support either this parameter, the PORT_DOI | |
| parameter, or the NET_DOI parameter. | |
| This list represents the minimal set of configuration parameters required | |
| to be compliant. Implementors are encouraged to add to this list to | |
| provide enhanced functionality and control. For example, many security | |
| policies may require both incoming and outgoing datagrams be checked against | |
| the port and host label ranges. | |
| 4.1 Port Range Parameters | |
| The labels represented by the PORT_LABEL_MAX and PORT_LABEL_MIN parameters | |
| MAY be in CIPSO or local format. Some CIPSO systems, such as routers, may | |
| want to have the range parameters expressed in CIPSO format so that incoming | |
| labels do not have to be converted to a local format before being compared | |
| against the range. If multiple DOIs are supported by one of these CIPSO | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 8] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| systems then multiple port range parameters would be needed, one set for | |
| each DOI supported on a particular port. | |
| The port range will usually represent the total set of labels that may | |
| exist on the logical network accessed through the corresponding network | |
| interface. It may, however, represent a subset of these labels that are | |
| allowed to enter the CIPSO system. | |
| 4.2 Single Label CIPSO Hosts | |
| CIPSO implementations that support only one label are not required to | |
| support the parameters described above. These limited implementations are | |
| only required to support a NET_LABEL parameter. This parameter contains | |
| the CIPSO label that may be inserted in datagrams that exit the host. In | |
| addition, the host MUST reject any incoming datagram that has a label which | |
| is not equivalent to the NET_LABEL parameter. | |
| 5. Handling Procedures | |
| This section describes the processing requirements for incoming and | |
| outgoing IP datagrams. Just providing the correct CIPSO label format | |
| is not enough. Assumptions will be made by one system on how a | |
| receiving system will handle the CIPSO label. Wrong assumptions may | |
| lead to non-interoperability or even a security incident. The | |
| requirements described below represent the minimal set needed for | |
| interoperability and that provide users some level of confidence. | |
| Many other requirements could be added to increase user confidence, | |
| however at the risk of restricting creativity and limiting vendor | |
| participation. | |
| 5.1 Input Procedures | |
| All datagrams received through a network port MUST have a security label | |
| associated with them, either contained in the datagram or assigned to the | |
| receiving port. Without this label the host, gateway, or router will not | |
| have the information it needs to make security decisions. This security | |
| label will be obtained from the CIPSO if the option is present in the | |
| datagram. See section 4.1.2 for handling procedures for unlabeled | |
| datagrams. This label will be compared against the PORT (if appropriate) | |
| and HOST configuration parameters defined in section 3. | |
| If any field within the CIPSO option, such as the DOI identifier, is not | |
| recognized the IP datagram is discarded and an ICMP "parameter problem" | |
| (type 12) is generated and returned. The ICMP code field is set to "bad | |
| parameter" (code 0) and the pointer is set to the start of the CIPSO field | |
| that is unrecognized. | |
| If the contents of the CIPSO are valid but the security label is | |
| outside of the configured host or port label range, the datagram is | |
| discarded and an ICMP "destination unreachable" (type 3) is generated | |
| and returned. The code field of the ICMP is set to "communication with | |
| destination network administratively prohibited" (code 9) or to | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 9] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| "communication with destination host administratively prohibited" | |
| (code 10). The value of the code field used is dependent upon whether | |
| the originator of the ICMP message is acting as a CIPSO host or a CIPSO | |
| gateway. The recipient of the ICMP message MUST be able to handle either | |
| value. The same procedure is performed if a CIPSO can not be added to an | |
| IP packet because it is too large to fit in the IP options area. | |
| If the error is triggered by receipt of an ICMP message, the message | |
| is discarded and no response is permitted (consistent with general ICMP | |
| processing rules). | |
| 5.1.1 Unrecognized tag types | |
| The default condition for any CIPSO implementation is that an | |
| unrecognized tag type MUST be treated as a "parameter problem" and | |
| handled as described in section 4.1. A CIPSO implementation MAY allow | |
| the system administrator to identify tag types that may safely be | |
| ignored. This capability is an allowable enhancement, not a | |
| requirement. | |
| 5.1.2 Unlabeled Packets | |
| A network port may be configured to not require a CIPSO label for all | |
| incoming datagrams. For this configuration a CIPSO label must be | |
| assigned to that network port and associated with all unlabeled IP | |
| datagrams. This capability might be used for single level networks or | |
| networks that have CIPSO and non-CIPSO hosts and the non-CIPSO hosts | |
| all operate at the same label. | |
| If a CIPSO option is required and none is found, the datagram is | |
| discarded and an ICMP "parameter problem" (type 12) is generated and | |
| returned to the originator of the datagram. The code field of the ICMP | |
| is set to "option missing" (code 1) and the ICMP pointer is set to 134 | |
| (the value of the option type for the missing CIPSO option). | |
| 5.2 Output Procedures | |
| A CIPSO option MUST appear only once in a datagram. Only one tag type | |
| from the MAC Sensitivity class MAY be included in a CIPSO option. Given | |
| the current set of defined tag types, this means that CIPSO labels at | |
| first will contain only one tag. | |
| All datagrams leaving a CIPSO system MUST meet the following condition: | |
| PORT_LABEL_MIN <= CIPSO label <= PORT_LABEL_MAX | |
| If this condition is not satisfied the datagram MUST be discarded. | |
| If the CIPSO system only supports one port, the HOST_LABEL_MIN and the | |
| HOST_LABEL_MAX parameters MAY be substituted for the PORT parameters in | |
| the above condition. | |
| The DOI identifier to be used for all outgoing datagrams is configured by | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 10] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| the administrator. If port level DOI identifier assignment is used, then | |
| the PORT_DOI configuration parameter MUST contain the DOI identifier to | |
| use. If network level DOI assignment is used, then the NET_DOI parameter | |
| MUST contain the DOI identifier to use. And if host level DOI assignment | |
| is employed, then the HOST_DOI parameter MUST contain the DOI identifier | |
| to use. A CIPSO implementation need only support one level of DOI | |
| assignment. | |
| 5.3 DOI Processing Requirements | |
| A CIPSO implementation MUST support at least one DOI and SHOULD support | |
| multiple DOIs. System and network administrators are cautioned to | |
| ensure that at least one DOI is common within an IP network to allow for | |
| broadcasting of IP datagrams. | |
| CIPSO gateways MUST be capable of translating a CIPSO option from one | |
| DOI to another when forwarding datagrams between networks. For | |
| efficiency purposes this capability is only a desired feature for CIPSO | |
| routers. | |
| 5.4 Label of ICMP Messages | |
| The CIPSO label to be used on all outgoing ICMP messages MUST be equivalent | |
| to the label of the datagram that caused the ICMP message. If the ICMP was | |
| generated due to a problem associated with the original CIPSO label then the | |
| following responses are allowed: | |
| a. Use the CIPSO label of the original IP datagram | |
| b. Drop the original datagram with no return message generated | |
| In most cases these options will have the same effect. If you can not | |
| interpret the label or if it is outside the label range of your host or | |
| interface then an ICMP message with the same label will probably not be | |
| able to exit the system. | |
| 6. Assignment of DOI Identifier Numbers = | |
| Requests for assignment of a DOI identifier number should be addressed to | |
| the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). | |
| 7. Acknowledgements | |
| Much of the material in this RFC is based on (and copied from) work | |
| done by Gary Winiger of Sun Microsystems and published as Commercial | |
| IP Security Option at the INTEROP 89, Commercial IPSO Workshop. | |
| 8. Author's Address | |
| To submit mail for distribution to members of the IETF CIPSO Working | |
| Group, send mail to: cipso@wdl1.wdl.loral.com. | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 11] | |
| CIPSO INTERNET DRAFT 16 July, 1992 | |
| To be added to or deleted from this distribution, send mail to: | |
| cipso-request@wdl1.wdl.loral.com. | |
| 9. References | |
| RFC 1038, "Draft Revised IP Security Option", M. St. Johns, IETF, January | |
| 1988. | |
| RFC 1108, "U.S. Department of Defense Security Options | |
| for the Internet Protocol", Stephen Kent, IAB, 1 March, 1991. | |
| Internet Draft, Expires 15 Jan 93 [PAGE 12] | |