<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- This is built from a template for a generic Internet Draft. Suggestions for
     improvement welcome - write to Brian Carpenter, brian.e.carpenter @ gmail.com 
     This can be converted using the Web service at http://xml.resource.org/ -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<!-- You want a table of contents -->
<!-- Use symbolic labels for references -->
<!-- This sorts the references -->
<!-- Change to "yes" if someone has disclosed IPR for the draft -->
<!-- This defines the specific filename and version number of your draft (and inserts the appropriate IETF boilerplate -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc topblock="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="no"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-chen-ipsec-problems-for-ntn-network-00" ipr="trust200902">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="ipsec problems for NTN network">IPsec problems when used in NTN network</title>

    <author fullname="Meiling Chen" initials="M." surname="Chen">
      <organization>China Mobile</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng District</street>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <region></region>
          <code>100053</code>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <phone></phone>
        <email>chenmeiling@chinamobile.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <author fullname="Li Su" initials="L." surname="Su">
      <organization>China Mobile</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng District</street>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <region></region>
          <code>100053</code>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <phone></phone>
        <email>suli@chinamobile.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>
    <date day="7" month="July" year="2025" />

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>security</area>

    <workgroup>IPsecme</workgroup>

    <keyword>Internet Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes the problems in the use of IPsec in satellite Internet and NTN network scenarios.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>The IPSEC protocol provides end-to-end security for IP networks by authenticating and encrypting IP packets to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of data during transmission. Under satellite Internet and NTN network, IPSEC is still a very important and commonly used security protocol. Due to the dynamic characteristics of satellites, there are also some problems in the use of IPsec.</t>
      <t>This document describes the problems in the use of IPsec in satellite Internet and NTN network scenarios.</t> 
    </section>
			
	<section anchor="term" title="Terminology">
		<section title="Terms">
			<t>The following terms are used in this document.</t>
			<ul spacing="normal">
				<li>Non-Terrestrial Network(NTN): using satellites, HAPS, Non ground platforms such as drones serve as communication nodes, forming a three-dimensional communication network together with ground base stations, allows user equipment (UE) to directly access the network through satellites or high-altitude platforms, thereby achieving global communication services.</li>
				<li>gNB: generation NodeB</li>
				<li>base station: a base station is a fixed device in wireless communication networks, used to achieve wireless signal transmission and data exchange between mobile devices and the core network.</li>
				<li>ground gateway station(abbreviated as gateway): a key equipment in satellite communication systems, mainly responsible for data transfer and routing management between satellites and ground networks</li>
				<li>AMF: Access and Mobility Management Function is one of the core functional modules of the core network, defined by the international communication standards organization 3GPP in the technical specification TS 23.501</li>
				<li>UPF: User Plane Function is an independent functional entity responsible for user plane data processing in the 5G core network. As a core component of the 5G SBA (Service Based Architecture) defined by the 3GPP standard, it is mainly responsible for routing and forwarding user data packets, policy execution, and protocol adaptation.</li>
				<li>UE: User Equipment refers to user terminal equipment, which is a collective term for mobile communication devices that can access cellular networks.</li>
				<li>DN: Data network.</li>		
			</ul>
		</section>
		<section title="Requirements Language">
        <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
      </section>
	</section>

	<section anchor="IPsec used in NTN" title="IPsec used in NTN">
		<t>For NTN network, the wireless access network defined in 3GPP is used with satellite network, UE can access data network via 3GPP wireless network and satellite network. NTN network supports gNB and UPF on satellites, UE connects to the base stations on satellites, and then connect to the core network through ground gateway stations.</t>
		<t>The data transmission path between the wireless access network and the core network is called the backhaul link, used to transmit user data, signaling, and control information from the wireless access layer to the core network for processing, forwarding, and storage. When the position of the base station changes, it will affect the security of the return link. This document takes 5G as an example to analyse the use of ipsec problems existed in NTN network.
		</t>
		<figure align="center" anchor="arch" title="UE access the ground mobile core network through satellite">
			<artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
     +-------+     +---------+     +--------------+
UE---|Sat/gNB|-----| Gateway |-----| Core Network |
     +-------+     +---------+     +--------------+	

      +----------+     +---------+     +--------------+
UE---|Sat/gNB+UPF|-----| Gateway |-----| Core Network |
     +-----------+     +---------+     +--------------+	    			
            ]]></artwork>
		</figure>
		<t>Multiple security interfaces are involved in this network architecture, and the 3GPP standard(TS33.501) specifies the use of IPsec to solve end-to-end secure transmission issues. The interfaces related to the ipsec protocol are summurised in Table 1.
		</t>
		<table>
        <name>Summary of the interfaces related to ipsec in NTN network</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Interfaces</th>
            <th align="left">Usage</th>
            <th align="left">Description in 3GPP</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">N2</td>
            <td align="left">gNB-AMF</td>
            <td align="left">In order to protect the N2 reference point, it is required to implement IPsec ESP and IKEv2 certificates-based authentication as specified in sub-clause 9.1.2 of the present document. IPsec is mandatory to implement on the gNB and the ng-eNB. On the core network side, a SEG may be used to terminate the IPsec tunnel.(TS 33.501)</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">N3</td>
            <td align="left">UE-UPF</td>
            <td align="left">In order to protect the traffic on the N3 reference point, it is required to implement IPsec ESP and IKEv2 certificate-based authentication as specified in sub-clause 9.1.2 of the present document with confidentiality, integrity and replay protection. IPsec is mandatory to implement on the gNB and the ng-eNB.(TS 33.501)</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">N4</td>
            <td align="left">UPF-AMF</td>
            <td align="left">NDS/IP</td>            
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">N6</td>
            <td align="left">UPF-DN</td>
            <td align="left">NDS/IP</td>           
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">N9</td>
            <td align="left">UPF-UPF</td>
            <td align="left">NDS/IP</td>          
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">backhaul</td>
            <td align="left">gNB-CN</td>
            <td align="left">IPsec</td>          
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <t>
      	From the table, we can see that the security of these interfaces relies entirely on IPsec providing end-to-end transmission security. In NTN networks, there are some issues to use IPsec due to the dynamics of datellites.
      </t>
	</section>
	<section anchor="problem" title="Analysis of possible issues with continuing to use IPsec">
	<section anchor="Q1" title="The issues with the IKEv2 handshake protocol when faced with latency and packet loss">
		<t>
			IKEv2 relies on UDP transmission and defined retransmission in RFC 7296. Under long inter satellite link latency, the following issues may be encountered:
		</t>
		<ul>
			<li>
				The default initial timeout an easily trigger premature retransmission, leading to a storm of repeated requests. Setting a longer timeout default value during implementation based on transmission latency can solve this problem. </li>
			<li>
				The loss of a single control message (such as IKE_AUTH) may reach the maximum number of retransmissions, leading to an exponential increase in handshake latency.</li>
		</ul>
		<t>
			Different retransmission rules need to be set according to different environments, especially in the case of satellite networks, then avoid network congestion.
		</t>
	</section>

	<section anchor="Q2" title="The issues with Security Association (SA) and IP Address Binding when the IP address of the satellite is changing">
		<t>
			The security alliance is uniquely identified by a triplet. This triplet includes: Security Parameter Index (SPI), destination IP address, and Security Protocol Number (AH or ESP). Due to the high-speed movement of the satellite, the overhead time is approximately 5-10 minutes, and at least one end's IP address is dynamically changing.
		</t>
		<t>
			SA lacks a IP independent identification mechanism. When the IP changes, the existing SA becomes invalid and the tunnel must be rebuilt. Although MOBIKE supports IP updates, but it cannot solve the problem of simultaneous changes in IP and entity.
		</t>
	</section>
	<section anchor="Q3" title="The issues with Zero tolerance for out of order windows">
		<t>
			The default anti replay window of IPSec is only 64 packets, relying on strict packet sequences. Due to multi-path routing, QoS scheduling, satellite switching, the probability of out of order arrival in satellite links is extremely high.
		</t>
		<t>
			The sliding window model will result in he legitimate packet was mistakenly rejected as a replay attack due to out of order, triggering a TCP retransmission storm. 
		</t>
		
	</section>
	<section anchor="Q4" title="Conflict between Lifetime and Link Interruption">
		<t>
			SA needs to update the key regularly (based on time/traffic), but the inter satellite link is frequently interrupted (obstructed, switched). If the interruption exceeds the survival time of SA, SA will be cleared and a full reconstruction is required for recovery.
		</t>
		<t>
			It is necessary to set the lifetime of SA based on the worst-case scenario of the satellite network to ensure that SA will not be deleted due to interruption.
		</t>
	</section>
	</section>	
	<section title="IANA Considerations">
		<t>This document does not require actions by IANA. </t>
	</section>

	<section title="Security Considerations">
        <t>This document mainly presents issues and does not involve new security considerations at the moment</t>
	</section>
	<section title="Acknowledgements">
		<t>Welcome everyone to contribute together</t>
	</section>
  </middle>
	
  <back>
	<references title="Normative Reference">
	<reference anchor="RFC2119">
        <front>
          <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
          <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
          <date month="March" year="1997"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
      </reference>				
	</references>
  </back>
</rfc>