RFC 3093 (rfc3093) - Page 1 of 11

Firewall Enhancement Protocol (FEP)

Alternative Format: Original Text Document
Next >
Network Working Group                                          M. Gaynor
Request for Comments: 3093                                    S. Bradner
Category: Informational                               Harvard University
                                                            1 April 2001


                  Firewall Enhancement Protocol (FEP)

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Internet Transparency via the end-to-end architecture of the Internet
   has allowed vast innovation of new technologies and services [1].
   However, recent developments in Firewall technology have altered this
   model and have been shown to inhibit innovation.  We propose the
   Firewall Enhancement Protocol (FEP) to allow innovation, without
   violating the security model of a Firewall.  With no cooperation from
   a firewall operator, the FEP allows ANY application to traverse a
   Firewall.  Our methodology is to layer any application layer
   Transmission Control Protocol/User Datagram Protocol (TCP/UDP)
   packets over the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) protocol, since
   HTTP packets are typically able to transit Firewalls.  This scheme
   does not violate the actual security usefulness of a Firewall, since
   Firewalls are designed to thwart attacks from the outside and to
   ignore threats from within.  The use of FEP is compatible with the
   current Firewall security model because it requires cooperation from
   a host inside the Firewall.  FEP allows the best of both worlds: the
   security of a firewall, and transparent tunneling thought the
   firewall.

1.0 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.







Gaynor & Bradner             Informational
Next >