Co-operative DDoS Mitigation
draft-reddy-dots-transport-00

Abstract

This document discusses mechanisms that a downstream Autonomous System (AS) can use, when it detects a potential Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack, to request an upstream AS to perform inbound filtering in its ingress routers for traffic that the downstream AS wishes to drop. The upstream AS can then undertake appropriate actions (including, blackhole, drop, rate-limit, or add to watch list) on the suspect traffic to the downstream AS thus reducing the effectiveness of the attack.

Status of This Memo

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 http://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 December 31, 2015.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2015 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 (http://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.

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Notational Conventions
• 3. Solution Overview
• 4. Protocol Requirements
• 5. Protocols for Consideration
• 5.1. REST
• 5.1.1. Install black-list rules
• 5.1.2. Remove black-list rules
• 5.1.3. Retrieving the black-list rules installed
• 5.1.4. TBD
• 5.2. BGP
• 6. IANA Considerations
• 7. Security Considerations
• 8. Acknowledgements
• 9. References
• 9.1. Normative References
• 9.2. Informative References
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

A distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack is an attempt to make machines or network resources unavailable to their intended users. In most cases, sufficient scale can be achieved by compromising enough end-hosts and using those infected hosts to perpetrate and amplify the attack. The victim in this attack can be an application server, a client, a router, a firewall, or an entire network, etc. The reader may refer, for example, to [REPORT] that reports the following:

• Very large DDoS attacks above the 100 Gbps threshold are experienced.
• DDoS attacks against customers remain the number one operational threat for service providers, with DDoS attacks against infrastructures being the top concern for 2014.
• Over 60% of service providers are seeing increased demand for DDoS detection and mitigation services from their customers (2014), with just over one-third seeing the same demand as in 2013.

Enterprises typically deploy DDoS monitoring appliances that are capable of inspecting and monitoring traffic to detect potential DDoS threats and generate alarms when some thresholds have been reached. Most of these tools are offline; further steps are required to introduce online tools that would have immediate effects on traffic associated with an ongoing attack. Thanks to the activation of dynamic cooperative means, countermeasure actions can be enforced in early stages of an attack, which can optimize any service degradation that can be perceived by end users.

This document describes a means for such enterprises to dynamically inform its access network of the IP addresses that are causing DDoS. The access network can use this information to discard flows from such IP addresses reaching the customer network.

The proposed mechanism can also be used between applications from various vendors that are deployed within the same network, some of them are responsible for monitoring and detecting attacks while others are responsible for enforcing policies on appropriate network elements. This cooperations contributes to a ensure a highly automated network that is also robust, reliable and secure.

The advantage of the proposed mechanism is that the upstream AS can provide protection to the downstream AS from bandwidth-saturating DDoS traffic. The proposed mechanism can also be coupled with policies to trigger how requests are issued. Nevertheless, it is out of scope of this document to elaborate on an exhaustive list of such policies.

How a server determines which network elements should be modified to install appropriate filtering rules is out of scope. A variety of mechanisms and protocols (including NETCONF) may be considered to exchange information through a communication interface between the server and these underlying elements; the selection of appropriate mechanisms and protocols to be invoked for that interfaces is deployment-specific.

2. Notational Conventions

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].

3. Solution Overview

Network applications have finite resources like CPU cycles, number of processes or threads they can create and use, maximum number of simultaneous connections it can handle, limited resources of the control plane, etc. When processing network traffic, such an application uses these resources to offer its intended task in the most efficient fashion. However, an attacker may be able to prevent the application from performing its intended task by causing the application to exhaust the finite supply of a specific resource.

The complexity and the multitude of potential targets result in making DDoS detection a distributed system over a network. Flood attacks can be detected at the entrance of the network, SYN floods may be detected by firewalls associated to behavioral analysis. Attacks on the link are carried out by sending enough traffic such that the link becomes excessively congested, and legitimate traffic suffers high packet loss. Other possible DDoS attacks are discussed in [RFC4732].

In each of the cases described above, if a network resource detects a potential DDoS attack from a set of IP addresses, the network resource informs its servicing router of all suspect IP addresses that need to be blocked or black-listed for further investigation. That router in-turn propagates the black-listed IP addresses to the access network and the access network blocks traffic from these IP addresses to the customer network thus reducing the effectiveness of the attack. The network resource, after certain duration, requests the rules to block traffic from these IP addresses be removed.

If a blacklisted IPv4 address is shared by multiple subscribers then the side effect of applying the black-list rule will be that traffic from non-attackers will also be blocked by the access network.

4. Protocol Requirements

The protocol requirements for co-operative DDoS mitigation are the following:

• Acknowledgement for the processing of a filtering request and the enforcement of associated countermeasures.
• Mechanism to delete a configured rule.
• Mechanism to convey lifetime of a rule.
• Mechanism to extend the validity of a rule.
• Mechanism to retrieve a list of filtering rules.
• Protocol needs to support "forward compatibility" where the network resource can tell the network entity what version it supports and vice-versa. Any protocol describing attack mitigations needs forwards compatibility so that new attacks can be described while still allowing older peers (who do not yet understand the new attack) to provide some mitigation.
• The mechanism should support the ability to send a request to multiple destinations (e.g., multi-homing cases).
• Because multiple clients may be allowed to send requests on behalf of a downstream node, the mechanism should allow to signal conflicting requests.
• The request to install a filter may indicate an action (e.g., block, add to a watch list, etc.).
• The mechanism must be transported over a reliable transport.

The security requirements for co-operative DDoS mitigation are the following:

• There must be a mechanism for mutual authentication between the network resource that is signaling black-list rules and the network entity that uses the rules either to propagate the rules upstream or enforces the rules locally to block traffic from attackers.
• Integrity protection is necessary to ensure that a man-in-the-middle (MITM) device does not alter the rules.
• Replay protection is required to ensure that passive attacker does not replay old rules.

5. Protocols for Consideration

An access network can advertise support for filtering rules based on REST APIs. A CPE router should use RESTful APIs discussed in this section to inform the access network of any desired IP filtering rules. If the access network does not advertise support for REST, BGP can be used. The means by which an access network can make this advertisement is outside the scope of this document.

5.1. REST

A network resource could use HTTP to provision and manage filters on the access network. The network resource authenticates itself to the CPE router, which in turn authenticates itself to a server in the access network, creating a two-link chain of transitive authentication between the network resource and the access network. The CPE router validates if the network resource is authorized to signal the black-list rules. Likewise, the server in the access network validates if the CPE router is authorized to signal the black-list rules. To create or purge filters, the network resource sends HTTP requests to the CPE router. The CPE router acts as HTTP proxy, validates the rules and proxies the HTTP requests containing the black-listed IP addresses to the HTTP server in the access network. When the HTTP proxy receives the associated HTTP response from the HTTP server, it propagates the response back to the network resource.

If an attack is detected by the CPE router then it can act as a HTTP client and signal the black-list rules to the access network. Thus the CPE router plays the role of both HTTP client and HTTP proxy.

  Network                                           
  Resource        CPE router        Access network      __________
+-----------+    +----------+       +-------------+    /          \   
|           |____|          |_______|             |___ | Internet |
|HTTP Client|    |HTTP Proxy|       | HTTP Server |    |          |
|           |    |          |       |             |    |          |
+-----------+    +----------+       +-------------+    \__________/  

  POST {scheme}://{host}:{port}/.well-known/{version}/{URI suffix}
  Accept: application/json
  Content-type: application/json
  {
     "policy-id": number,
     "traffic-protocol": string,
     "source-protocol-port": string, 
     "destination-protocol-port": string,
     "destination-ip": string,
     "source-ip": string,
     "lifetime": number,
     "traffic-rate" : number,
   }

  POST https://www.example.com/.well-known/v1/acl
  Accept: application/json
  Content-type: application/json
   {
     "policy-id": 123321333242,
     "traffic-protocol": "tcp",
     "source-protocol-port": "1-65535", 
     "destination-protocol-port": "443",
     "destination-ip": "2001:db8:abcd:3f01::/64",
     "source-ip": "2002:db8:6401::1", 
     "lifetime": 1800,
     "traffic-rate": 0,
   }

  DELETE {scheme}://{host}:{port}/.well-known/{URI suffix}
  Accept: application/json
  Content-type: application/json
   {
     "policy-id": number
   }

  1) To retrieve all the black-lists rules programmed by the CPE router.
  
  GET {scheme}://{host}:{port}/.well-known/{URI suffix} 

  2) To retrieve specific black-list rules programmed by the CPE router.

  GET {scheme}://{host}:{port}/.well-known/{URI suffix} 
  Accept: application/json
  Content-type: application/json
   {
     "policy-id": number
   }