| Network Working Group | S. Hyun |
| Internet-Draft | J. Jeong |
| Intended status: Standards Track | T. Roh |
| Expires: September 6, 2018 | S. Wi |
| Sungkyunkwan University | |
| J. Park | |
| ETRI | |
| March 5, 2018 |
I2NSF Registration Interface Information Model
draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-04
This document describes an information model for Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) Registration Interface between Security Controller and Developer's Management System (DMS). The information model is required to support NSF instance creation, registration, and deletion request via the registration interface. This document explains the procedures over I2NSF registration interface for these functionalities. It also describes the detailed information which should be exchanged via I2NSF registration interface.
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 September 6, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.
A number of virtual network security function instances typically exist in Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) framework [RFC8329]. Since these NSF instances may have different security capabilities, it is important to register the security capabilities of each NSF instance into the security controller after they have been created. In addition, it is required to instantiate NSFs of some required security capabilities on demand. As an example, if additional security capabilities are required to meet the new security requirements that an I2NSF user requests, the security controller should be able to request the DMS to instantiate NSFs that have the required security capabilities.
This document describes the information model which is required for the registration interface between security controller and developer's management system to support registration and instantiation of NSFs. It further describes the procedure based on the information model which should be performed by the security controller and the developer's management system via the registration interface.
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 [RFC2119].
This document uses the terminology described in [i2nsf-terminology][capability-im][RFC8329] [nsf-triggered-steering].
The I2NSF registration interface was only used for registering new NSF instances to Security Controller. In this document, however, we extend its utilization to support on demand NSF instantiation/de-instantiation and describe the information that should be exchanged via the registration interface for the functionality. Moreover, we also define the information model of NSF Profile because, for registration interface, NSF Profile (i.e., capabilities of an NSF) needs to be clarified so that the components of I2NSF framework can exchange the set of capabilities in a standardized manner. This is typically done through the following process:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Registration Interface Information Model |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | Instance Management | | Registration | |
| | Sub-Model | | Sub-Model | |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Registration Interface Information Model
As illustrated in Figure 1, the information model for Registration Interface consists of two sub-models: instance management, registration sub-models. The instance management functionality and the registration functionality use NSF Profile to achieve their goals. In this context, NSF Profile is the capability objects that describe and/or prescribe inspection capability an NSF instance can provide.
For the instance management of NSFs, Security Controller in I2NSF framework requires two types of requests: Instantiation Request and Deinstantiation Request. Security Controller sends the request messages to DMS when required. Once receiving the request, DMS conducts creating/eliminating the corresponding NSF instance and responds Security Controller with the results.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instantiation | | De-instantiation |
| Request | | Request |
+-+-+-+-^-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-^-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NSF Capability | | NSF Access |
| Information | | Information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Instance Management Sub-Model
In order to register a new NSF instance, DMS should generate a Registration Message to Security Controller. A Registration Message consists of an NSF Profile and an NSF Access Information. The former describes the inspection capability of the new NSF instance and the latter is for enabling network access to the new instance from other components. After this registration process, as explained in [capability-im], the I2NSF capability interface can conduct controlling and monitoring the new registered NSF instance.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NSF |
| Registration |
+-+-+-+-^-+-+-+-+
|
+----------------------------+
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NSF Capability | | NSF Access |
| Information | | Information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Registration Sub-Model
NSF Access Information contains the followings that are required to communicate with an NSF: IPv4 address, IPv6 address, port number, and supported transport protocol(s) (e.g., Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) [RFC 7348], Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE) [nvo3-vxlan-gpe], Generic Route Encapsulation (GRE), Ethernet etc.). In this document, NSF Access Information is used to identify a specific NSF instance (i.e. NSF Access Information is the signature(unique identifier) of an NSF instance in the overall system).
NSF Capability Information describes the security capabilities of an NSF instance. In Figure 4, we show capability objects of an NSF instance. Following the information model of NSF capabilities defiend in [capability-im], we share the same security capabilities: Network-Security Capabilities, Content-Security Capabilities, and Attack Mitigation Capabilities. Also, NSF Capability Information additionally contains the performance capabilities and role-Based access control list (ACL) as shown in Figure 4.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Capability |
| Objects |
+-+-+-+-^-+-+-+-+
|
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------+
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
|Network-Security | |Content-Security | |Attack Mitigation| |
| Capabilities | | Capabilities | | Capabilities | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
|
+-----------------------+---------------------+
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Performance | | Role-Based |
| Capabilities | | ACL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: NSF Profile Overview
This information represents the processing capability of an NSF. This information can be used to determine whether the NSF is in congestion by comparing this with the workload that the NSF currently undergoes. Moreover, this information can specify an available amount of each type of resources such as processing power which are available on the NSF. (The registration interface can control the usages and limitations of the created instance and make the appropriate request according to the status.) As illustrated in Figure 5, this information consists of two items: Processing and Bandwidth. Processing information describes the NSF's available processing power. Bandwidth describes the information about available network amount in two cases, outbound, inbound. This two information can be used for the NSF's instance request.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Performance |
| Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-^-+-+-+-+-+
|
+----------------------------+
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Processing | | Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Performance Capability Overview
This information specifies access policies of an NSF to determine whether to permit or deny the access of an entity to the NSF based on the role given to the entity. Each NSF is associated with a role-based access control list (ACL) so that it can determine whether to permit or deny the access request from an entity. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the structure of the role-based ACL, which is composed of role-id, access-type, and permit/deny. The role-id identifies roles of entities (e.g., administrator, developer etc.). The access-type identifies the specific type of access requests such as NSF rule configuration/update and NSF monitoring. Consequently, the role-based ACL in Figure 6 and Figure 7 specifies a set of access-types to be permitted and to be denied by each role-id.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Role-based |
| ACL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
+-----------------------------------+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Role-id 1 | ... | Role-id N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Role-based Access Control List
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Role-id i |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
+---------------------------------+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Permit | | Deny |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+
|access-type| ... |access-type| |access-type| ... |access-type|
| p1 | | pn | | d1 | | dn |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Role-id Subtree
The information model of the registration interface is based on the I2NSF framework without any architectural changes. Thus, this document shares the security considerations of the I2NSF framwork that are specified in [RFC8329] for the purpose of achieving secure communication between components in the proposed architecture.
This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion(IITP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIP) (No.R-20160222-002755, Cloud based Security Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized Security Service Provisioning).
This document has greatly benefited from inputs by SangUk Woo and YunSuk Yeo.
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
| [capability-im] | Xia, L., Strassner, J., Basile, C. and D. Lopez, "Information Model of NSFs Capabilities", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-00, September 2017. |
| [i2nsf-terminology] | Hares, S., Strassner, J., Lopez, D., Xia, L. and H. Birkholz, "Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) Terminology", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-05, January 2018. |
| [nsf-triggered-steering] | Hyun, S., Jeong, J., Park, J. and S. Hares, "Service Function Chaining-Enabled I2NSF Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-hyun-i2nsf-nsf-triggered-steering-05, March 2018. |
| [nvo3-vxlan-gpe] | Maino, Ed., F., Kreeger, Ed., L. and U. Elzur, Ed., "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-05, October 2017. |
| [RFC8329] | Lopez, D., Lopez, E., Dunbar, L., Strassner, J. and R. Kumar, "Framework for Interface to Network Security Functions", RFC 8329, February 2018. |
The following changes have been made from draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-03: