Internet DRAFT - draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability
draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability
I2RS J. Clarke
Internet-Draft G. Salgueiro
Intended status: Informational C. Pignataro
Expires: March 1, 2015 Cisco
August 28, 2014
Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
Information Model
draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability-03
Abstract
This document describes a framework for traceability in the Interface
to the Routing System (I2RS) and information model for that
framework. It specifies the motivation, requirements, use cases, and
defines an information model for recording interactions between
elements implementing the I2RS protocol. This framework provides a
consistent tracing interface for components implementing the I2RS
architecture to record what was done, by which component, and when.
It aims to improve the management of I2RS implementations, and can be
used for troubleshooting, auditing, forensics, and accounting
purposes.
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 March 1, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
(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
2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. I2RS Traceability Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. I2RS Trace Log Mandatory Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.3. End of Message Marker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. I2RS Trace Log Extensibility and Optional Fields . . . . 7
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Operational Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Trace Log Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Trace Log Temporary Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. Trace Log Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.4. Trace Log Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.4.1. Retrieval Via Syslog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.4.2. Retrieval Via I2RS Information Collection . . . . . . 9
7.4.3. Retrieval Via I2RS Pub-Sub . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
The architecture for the Interface to the Routing System
([I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]) specifies that I2RS Clients wishing to
retrieve or change routing state on a routing element MUST
authenticate to an I2RS Agent. The I2RS Client will have a unique
identity it provides for authentication, and should provide another,
opaque identifier for applications (or actors) communicating through
it. The programming of routing state will produce a return code
containing the results of the specified operation and associated
reason(s) for the result. All of this is critical information to be
used for understanding the history of I2RS interactions.
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
This document describes use cases for I2RS traceability. Based on
these use cases, the document proposes an information model and
reporting requirements to provide for effective recording of I2RS
interactions. In this context, effective troubleshooting means being
able to identify what operation was performed by a specific I2RS
Client, what was the result of the operation, and when that operation
was performed.
Discussions about the retention of the data logged as part of I2RS
traceability, while important, are outside of the scope of this
document.
2. Terminology and 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].
The architecture specification for I2RS [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
defines additional terms used in this document that are specific to
the I2RS domain, such as "I2RS Agent", "I2RS Client", etc. The
reader is expected to be familiar with the terminology and concepts
defined in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture].
The IP addresses used in the example in this document correspond to
the documentation address blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1),
198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2) and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3) as
described in [RFC5737].
3. Motivation
As networks scale and policy becomes an increasingly important part
of the control plane that creates and maintains the forwarding state,
operational complexity increases as well. I2RS offers more granular
and coherent control over policy and control plane state, but it also
removes or reduces the locality of the policy that has been applied
to the control plane at any individual forwarding device. The
ability to automate and abstract even complex policy-based controls
highlights the need for an equally scalable traceability function to
provide event-level granularity of the routing system compliant with
the requirements of I2RS (Section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement]).
4. Use Cases
An obvious motivation for I2RS traceability is the need to
troubleshoot and identify root-causes of problems in these
increasingly complex routing systems. For example, since I2RS is a
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
high-throughput multi-channel, full duplex and highly responsive
interface, I2RS Clients may be performing a large number of
operations on I2RS Agents concurrently or at nearly the same time and
quite possibly in very rapid succession. As these many changes are
made, the network reacts accordingly. These changes might lead to a
race condition, performance issues, data loss, or disruption of
services. In order to isolate the root cause of these issues it is
critical that a network operator or administrator has visibility into
what changes were made via I2RS at a specific time.
Some network environments have strong auditing requirements for
configuration and runtime changes. Other environments have policies
that require saving logging information for operational or regulatory
compliance considerations. These requirements therefore demand that
I2RS provides an account of changes made to network element routing
systems.
As I2RS becomes increasingly pervasive in routing environments, a
traceability model offers significant advantages and facilitates the
following use cases:
o Automated event correlation, trend analysis, and anomaly
detection.
o Trace log storage for offline (manual or tools) analysis.
o Improved accounting of routing system transactions.
o Standardized structured data format for writing common tools.
o Common reference for automated testing and incident reporting.
o Real-time monitoring and troubleshooting.
o Enhanced network audit, management and forensic analysis
capabilities.
5. Information Model
5.1. I2RS Traceability Framework
This section describes a framework for I2RS traceability based on the
I2RS Architecture. Some notable elements on the architecture are
highlighted herein.
The interaction between the optional northbound actor, I2RS Client,
I2RS Agent, the Routing System and the data captured in the I2RS
trace log is shown in Figure 1.
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
+-------------+
|Actor |
|.............|
| Actor ID |
+-------------+
^
| 0 .. N
|
V
+-------------+
|I2RS Client |
|.............|
| Client ID |
+-------------+
^
| 1 .. N
|
V
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
|I2RS Agent |---------------->|Trace Log |
| | |.............................|
+-------------+ |Log Entry [1 .. N] |
^ |.............................|
| |Timestamp |
| |Client ID |
| ^ |Actor ID |
Operation + | Result Code |Client Address |
Op Data | |Operation |
V | |Operation Data |
| |Result Code |
V |End Of Message |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
|Routing |
|System |
+-------------+
Figure 1: I2RS Interaction Trace Log Capture
5.2. I2RS Trace Log Mandatory Fields
In order to ensure that each I2RS interaction can be properly traced
back to the Client that made the request at a specific point in time,
the following information MUST be collected and stored by the Agent.
The list below describes the fields captured in the I2RS trace log.
Entry ID: This is a unique identifier for each entry in the I2RS
trace log. Since multiple operations can occur from the same
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
client at the same time, it is important to have an identifier
that can be unambiguously associated to a specific entry.
Timestamp: The specific time, adhering to [RFC3339] format, at
which the I2RS transaction occurred. Given that many I2RS
transactions can occur in rapid succession, the use of fractional
seconds MUST be used to provide adequate granularity.
Client Identifier: The I2RS Client identifier used to authenticate
the Client to the I2RS Agent.
Actor Identifier: This is an opaque identifier that may be known to
the Client from a northbound controlling application. This is
used to trace the northbound actor driving the actions of the
Client. The Client may not provide this identifier to the Agent
if there is no external actor driving the Client. However, this
field MUST be logged. If the Client does not provide an actor ID,
then the Agent MUST log an UNAVAILABLE value in the field.
Client Address: This is the network address of the client that
connected to the Agent. For example, this may be an IPv4 or IPv6
address. [Note: will I2RS support interactions that have no
network address? If so this field will need to be updated.]
Operation: This is the I2RS operation performed. For example, this
may be an add route operation if a route is being inserted into a
routing table.
Operation Data: This field comprises the data passed to the Agent
to complete the desired operation. For example, if the operation
is a route add operation, the Operation Data would include the
route prefix, prefix length, and next hop information to be
inserted as well as the specific routing table to which the route
will be added. The operation data can also include interface
information. Some operations may not provide operation data, and
in those cases this field MUST be logged as a NULL string.
Result Code: This field holds the result of the operation. In the
case of RIB operations, this MUST be the return code as specified
in Section 4 of [I-D.nitinb-i2rs-rib-info-model]. The operation
may not complete with a result code in the case of a timeout. If
the operation fails to complete, it MUST still log the attempted
operation with an appropriate result code (e.g., a result code
indicating a timeout).
End Of Message: Each log entry SHOULD have an appropriate End Of
Message (EOM) indicator. See section Section 5.3 below for more
details.
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
5.3. End of Message Marker
Because of variability within I2RS trace log fields, implementors
MUST use a format-appropriate end of message (EOM) indicator in order
to signify the end of a particular record. That is, regardless of
format, the I2RS trace log MUST provide a distinct way of
distinguishing between the end of one record and the beginning of
another. For example, in a linear formated log (similar to syslog)
the EOM marker may be a newline character. In an XML formated log,
the schema would provide for element tags that denote beginning and
end of records. In a JSON formated log, the syntax would provide
record separation (likely by comma-separated array elements).
5.4. I2RS Trace Log Extensibility and Optional Fields
[NOTE: This section is TBD based on further development of I2RS WG
milestones.]
6. Examples
Here is a proposed sample of what the fields might look like in an
I2RS trace log. This is only an early proposal. These values are
subject to change.
Entry ID: 1
Timestamp: 2013-09-03T12:00:01.21+00:00
Client ID: 5CEF1870-0326-11E2-A21F-0800200C9A66
Actor ID: com.example.RoutingApp
Client Address: 192.0.2.2
Operation: ROUTE_ADD
Operation Data: PREFIX 203.0.113.0 PREFIX-LEN 24 NEXT-HOP
198.51.100.1
Result Code: SUCCESS(0)
7. Operational Guidance
Specific operational procedures regarding temporary log storage,
rollover, retrieval, and access of I2RS trace logs is out of scope
for this document. Organizations employing I2RS trace logging are
responsible for establishing proper operational procedures that are
appropriately suited to their specific requirements and operating
environment. In this section we only provide fundamental and
generalized operational guidelines that are implementation-
independent.
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
7.1. Trace Log Creation
The I2RS Agent interacts with the Routing and Signaling functions of
the Routing Element. Since the I2RS Agent is responsible for
actually making the routing changes on the associated network device,
it creates and maintains a log of transactions that can be retrieved
to troubleshoot I2RS-related impact to the network.
7.2. Trace Log Temporary Storage
The trace information may be temporarily stored either in an in-
memory buffer or as a file local to the Agent. Care should be given
to the number of I2RS transactions expected on a given agent so that
the appropriate storage medium is used and to maximize the
effectiveness of the log while not impacting the performance and
health of the Agent. Section 7.3 talks about rotating the trace log
in order to preserve the transaction history without exhausting Agent
or network device resources. It is perfectly acceptable, therefore,
to use both an in-memory buffer for recent transactions while
rotating or archiving older transactions to a local file.
It is outside the scope of this document to specify the
implementation details (i.e., size, throughput, data protection,
privacy, etc.) for the physical storage of the I2RS log file. Data
retention policies of the I2RS traceability log is also outside the
scope of this document.
7.3. Trace Log Rotation
In order to prevent the exhaustion of resources on the I2RS Agent or
its associated network device, it is RECOMMENDED that the I2RS Agent
implements trace log rotation. The details on how this is achieved
are left to the implementation and outside the scope of this
document. However, it should be possible to do file rotation based
on either time or size of the current trace log. If file rollover is
supported, multiple archived log files should be supported in order
to maximize the troubleshooting and accounting benefits of the trace
log.
7.4. Trace Log Retrieval
Implementors are free to provide their own, proprietary interfaces
and develop custom tools to retrieve and display the I2RS trace log.
These may include the display of the I2RS trace log as Command Line
Interface (CLI) output. However, a key intention of defining this
information model is to establish an implementor-agnostic and
consistent interface to collect I2RS trace data. Correspondingly,
retrieval of the data should also be made implementor-agnostic.
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
The following three sections describe potential ways the trace log
can be accessed. At least one of these three MUST be used, with the
I2RS mechanisms being preferred as they are implementor-independent
approaches to retrieving the data.
7.4.1. Retrieval Via Syslog
The syslog protocol [RFC5424] is a standard way of sending event
notification messages from a host to a collector. However, the
protocol does not define any standard format for storing the
messages, and thus implementors of I2RS tracing would be left to
define their own format. So, while the data contained within the
syslog message would adhere to this information model, and may be
consumable by a human operator, it would not be easily parseable by a
machine. Therefore, syslog MAY be employed as a means of retrieving
or disseminating the I2RS trace log contents.
7.4.2. Retrieval Via I2RS Information Collection
Section 6.7 of the I2RS architecture [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
defines a mechanism for information collection. The information
collected includes obtaining a snapshot of a large amount of data
from the network element. It is the intent of I2RS to make this data
available in an implementor-agnostic fashion. Therefore, the I2RS
trace log SHOULD be made available via the I2RS information
collection mechanism either as a single snapshot or via a
subscription stream.
7.4.3. Retrieval Via I2RS Pub-Sub
Section 6.7 of the I2RS architecture [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
goes on to define a publish-subscribe mechanism for a feed of changes
happening within the I2RS layer. I2RS Agents SHOULD support
publishing I2RS trace log information to that feed as described in
that document. Subscribers would then receive a live stream of I2RS
interactions in trace log format and could flexibly choose to do a
number of things with the log messages. For example, the subscribers
could log the messages to a datastore, aggregate and summarize
interactions from a single client, etc. Using pub-sub for the
purpose of logging I2RS interactions augments the areas described by
[I-D.camwinget-i2rs-pubsub-sec]. The full range of potential
activites is virtually limitless and the details of how they are
performed are outside the scope of this document, however.
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
9. Security Considerations
The I2RS trace log, like any log file, reveals the state of the
entity producing it as well as the identifying information elements
and detailed interactions of the system containing it. The
information model described in this document does not itself
introduce any security issues, but it does define the set of
attributes that make up an I2RS log file. These attributes may
contain sensitive information and thus should adhere to the security,
privacy and permission policies of the organization making use of the
I2RS log file.
It is outside the scope of this document to specify how to protect
the stored log file, but it is expected that adequate precautions and
security best practices such as disk encryption, appropriately
restrictive file/directory permissions, suitable hardening and
physical security of logging entities, mutual authentication,
transport encryption, channel confidentiality, and channel integrity
if transferring log files. Additionally, the potentially sensitive
information contained in a log file SHOULD be adequately anonymized
or obfuscated by operators to ensure its privacy.
10. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Alia Atlas for her initial feedback
and overall support for this work. Additionally, the authors
acknowledge Alvaro Retana, Russ White, Matt Birkner, Jeff Haas, Joel
Halpern and Dean Bogdanovich for their reviews, contributed text, and
suggested improvements to this document.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-05 (work in
progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement]
Atlas, A., Nadeau, T., and D. Ward, "Interface to the
Routing System Problem Statement", draft-ietf-i2rs-
problem-statement-04 (work in progress), June 2014.
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.camwinget-i2rs-pubsub-sec]
Beck, K., Cam-Winget, N., and D. McGrew, "Using the
Publish-Subscribe Model in the Interface to the Routing
System", draft-camwinget-i2rs-pubsub-sec-00 (work in
progress), July 2013.
[I-D.nitinb-i2rs-rib-info-model]
Bahadur, N., Folkes, R., Kini, S., and J. Medved, "Routing
Information Base Info Model", draft-nitinb-i2rs-rib-info-
model-02 (work in progress), August 2013.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009.
[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Joe Clarke
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Phone: +1-919-392-2867
Email: jclarke@cisco.com
Gonzalo Salgueiro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: gsalguei@cisco.com
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft I2RS Traceability August 2014
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Clarke, et al. Expires March 1, 2015 [Page 12]
