Internet DRAFT - draft-henry-madinas-framework
draft-henry-madinas-framework
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Henry
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational Y. Lee
Expires: 27 April 2022 Comcast
24 October 2021
Randomized and Changing MAC Address Use Cases
draft-henry-madinas-framework-03
Abstract
To limit the association between a device traffic and its user,
client vendors have started implementing MAC address rotation. When
such rotation happens, some in-network states may break, which may
affect network efficiency and the user experience. At the same time,
devices may continue sending other stable identifiers, defeating the
MAC rotation purposes. This document lists various network
environements and a set of network services that may be affected by
such rotation. This document then examines settings where the user
experience may be affected by in-network state disruption, and
settings where other machine identifiers may expose the user privacy.
Last, this document examines solutions to maintain user privacy while
preserving user quality of experience and network operation
efficiency.
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 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 27 April 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. MAC Address as an Identity: User vs. Device . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Actors: Network Functional Entities and Human Entities . 6
3.1. Network Functional Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Human-related Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. The Trust and the Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. The Purpose of Device Identification and Associated
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Scenario Mapping Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. Requirements Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
It has become easier for attackers to track the activity of a
personal device, particularly when traffic is sent over a wireless
link. Once the association between a device and its user is made,
identifying the device and its activity is sufficient to deduce
information about what the user is doing, without the user consent.
To reduce the risks of correlation between a device activity and its
owner, multiple vendors have started to implement Randomized and
Changing MAC addresses (RCM). With this scheme, an end-device
implements a different RCM over time when exchanging traffic over a
wireless network. By randomizing the MAC address, the association
between a given traffic flow and a single device is made more
difficult, assuming no other visible unique identifiers are in use.
However, such address change may affect the user experience and the
efficiency of legitimate network operations. For a long time, the
unicity of the association between a device and a MAC address was
assumed, despite the emergence of tools to flush out the MAC address
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
to bypass some network policies. When this association is broken,
elements of network communication may also break. For example,
sessions established between the end-device and network services may
be lost and packets in translation may suddenly be without clear
source or destination. As multiple clients implements fast-paced RCM
rotations, network services may be over-solicited by a small number
of stations that appear as many clients.
At the same time, some network services rely on the client station
providing an identifier, which can be the MAC address or another
value. If the client implements MAC rotation but continues sending
the same static identifier, then the association between a stable
identifier identifier and the station continues despite the RCM
scheme. There may be environements where such continued association
is desirable, but others where the user privacy has more value than
any continuity of network service state.
There is a need to enumerate services that may be affected by RCM,
and evaluate possible solutions to maintain both the quality of user
experience and network efficiency while RCM happens and user privacy
is reinforced. This document presents such assessment and
recommendations.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2. MAC Address as an Identity: User vs. Device
Any device member of an IEEE 802 network [IEEE.802-1D.1993] includes
several operating layers. Among them, the Media Access Control (MAC)
layer defines rules to control how the device accesses the shared
medium. In a network where a machine can communicate with one or
more other machines, one such rule is that each machine needs to be
identified, either as the target destination of a message, or as the
source of a message (and thus the target destination of the answer).
Initially intended as a 48-bit (6 octets) value, later versions of
the Standard [IEEE.802.15.4P_2014] allowed this address to take an
extended format of 64 bits (8 octets), thus enabling a larger number
of MAC addresses to coexist as the 802 technologies became widely
adopted.
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
Regardless of the address length, different networks have different
needs, and several bits of the first octet are reserved for specific
purposes. In particular, the first bit is used to identify the
destination address either as an individual (bit set to 0) or a group
address (bit set to 1). The second bit, called the Universally or
Locally Administered (U/L) Address Bit, indicates whether the address
has been assigned by a local or universal administrator. Universally
administered addresses have this bit set to 0. If this bit is set to
1, the entire address (i.e., 48 bits) has been locally administered
[IEEE.802-1Y.1990] Section 5.2.1.
The intent of this provision is important for the present document.
The 802 Standard recognized that some devices may never travel and
thus, always attaching to the same network, would not need a globally
unique MAC address. To accommodate for this relaxed requirement, the
second bit of the MAC address first octet the MAC address format was
designed to express whether the address was intended to be globally
unique, or if significance was only local. The address allocation
method was not defined in the Standard in this later case, but the
mechanism was defined in the same clause that defined that an address
should be unique so as to avoid collision.
It is also important to note that the purpose of the Universal
version of the address was to avoid collisions and confusion, as any
machine could connect to any network, and each machine needs to
determine if it is the intended destination of a message or its
response. The same clause 5.2.1 reminds network designers and
operators that all potential members of a network need to have a
unique identifier (if they are going to coexist in the network). The
advantage of a universal address is that a node with such an address
can be attached to any Local Area Network (LAN) in the world with an
assurance that its address is unique.
With the rapid development of wireless technologies and mobile
devices, this scenario became very common. With a vast majority of
802 networks implementing radio technologies at the access, the MAC
address of a wireless device can appear anywhere on the planet and
collisions should still be avoided. However, the same evolution
brought the distinction between two types of devices that the 802
Standard generally referred to as 'nodes in a network'. Their
definition is found in the 802E Recommended Practice (clause 6.2).
One type is a shared service device, which functions are used by a
number of people large enough that the device itself, its functions
or its traffic cannot be associated with a single or small group of
people. Examples of such devices include switches in a dense
network, 802.11 (WLAN) access points in a crowded airport, task-
specific (e.g. barcode scanners) devices, etc. Another type is a
personal device, which is a machine, a node, primarily used by a
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
single person or small group of people, and so that any
identification of the device or its traffic can also be associated to
the identification of the primary user or their traffic. Quite
naturally, the unique identification of the device is trivial if the
device expresses a universally unique MAC address. Then, the
detection of elements directly or indirectly identifying the user of
the device (Personally Identifiable Information, or PII) is
sufficient to tie the universal MAC address to a user. Then, any
detection of traffic that can be associated to the device becomes
also associated with the known user of that device (Personally
Correlated Information, or PCI).
This possible identification or association presents a serious
privacy issue, especially with wireless technologies. For most of
them, and in particular for 802.11, the source and destination MAC
addresses are not encrypted even in networks that implement
encryption (so that each machine can easily detect if it is the
intended target of the message before attempting to decrypt its
content, and also identify the transmitter, so as to use the right
key when multiple unicast keys are in effect).
This unique identification of the user associated to a node was
clearly not the intent of the 802 MAC address. A logical solution to
remove this association is to use a locally administered address
instead, and change the address in a fashion that prevents a temporal
association between one MAC address and some PII to be maintained
fruitfully. However, other network devices on the same LAN
implementing a MAC layer also expect the unicity of the MAC address.
When a device changes its MAC address, other devices on the same LAN
may fail to recognize that the same machine is attempting to
communicate with them. Additionally, multiple layers implemented at
upper OSI layers have been designed with the assumption that each
node on the LAN, using these services, would have a unique MAC
address. This assumption sometimes adds to the PII confusion, for
example in the case of Authentication, Association and Accounting
(AAA) services authenticating the user of a machine and associating
the authenticated user to the device MAC address. Other services
solely focus on the machine (e.g. DHCP), but still expect each
device to use a single MAC address. Changing the MAC address may
disrupt these services.
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
3. The Actors: Network Functional Entities and Human Entities
The risk of service disruption is thus weighted against the privacy
benefits. However, the plurality of actors involved in the exchanges
tends to blurry the boundaries of what privacy should be protected
against. It might therefore be useful to list the actors to the
network exchanges. Some actors are functional entities, some others
are humans (or related) entities.
3.1. Network Functional Entities
Wireless access network infrastructure devices (e.g. WLAN access
points or controllers): these devices participate in 802 LAN
operations. As such, they need to uniquely identify machines as a
source or destination so as to successfully continue exchanging
frames. Part of the identification includes recording, and adapting
to, devices communication capabilities (e.g. support for specific
protocols). As a device changes its network attachment (roams) from
one access point to another, the access points can exchange
contextual information (e.g. device MAC, keying material) allowing
the device session to continue seamlessly. These access points can
also inform devices further in the wired network about the roam, to
ensure that OSI model Layer 2 frames are redirected to the new device
access point.
Other network devices operating at the MAC layer: many wireless
network access devices (e.g., 802.11 access points) are conceived as
Layer 2 devices, and as such they bridge a frame from one medium
(e.g., 802.11 or Wi-Fi) to another (e.g., 802.3 or Ethernet). This
means that a wireless device MAC address often exists on the wire
beyond the wireless access device. Devices connected to this wire
also implement 802 technologies, and as such operate on the
expectation that each device is associated to a unique MAC address
for the duration of continuous exchanges. For example, switches and
bridges associate MAC addresses to individual ports (so as to know
which port to send a frame intended for a particular MAC address).
Similarly, authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA)
services can validate the identity of a device and use the device MAC
address as a first pointer to the device identity (before operating
further verification). Similarly, some networking devices offer
Layer-2 filtering policies that may rely on the connected MAC
addresses. 802.1X-enabled devices may also selectively block the data
portion of a port until a connecting device is authenticated. These
services then use the MAC address as a first pointer to the device
identity to allow or block data traffic. This list is not
exhaustive. Multiple services are defined for 802.3 networks, and
multiple services defined by the IEEE 802.1 working group are also
applicable to 802.3 networks. Wireless access points may also
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
connect to other mediums than 802.3, which also implements mechanism
under the umbrella of the general 802 Standard, and therefore expect
the unique association of a MAC address to a device.
Network devices operating at upper layers: some network devices
provide functions and services above the MAC layer. Some of them
also operate a MAC layer function: for example, routers provide IP
forwarding services, but rely on the device MAC address to create the
appropriate frame structure. Other devices and services operate at
upper layers, but also rely upon the 802 principle of unique MAC-to-
device mapping. For example, DHCPv4 services commonly provide a
single IP address per MAC address (they do not assign more than one
IPv4 address per MAC address, and assign a new IPv4 address to each
new requesting MAC address). ARP and reverse-ARP services commonly
expect that, once an IP-to-MAC mapping has been established, this
mapping is valid and unlikely to change for the cache lifetime.
DHCPv6 services commonly do not assign the same IPv6 address to two
different requesting MAC addresses. Hybrid services, such as EoIP,
also assume stability of the device-to-MAC-and-IP mapping for the
duration of a given session.
3.2. Human-related Entities
Over the air (OTA) observers: as the transmitting or receiving MAC
address is usually not encrypted in wireless 802-technologies
exchanges, and as any protocol-compatible device in range of the
signal can read the frame header, OTA observers are able to read
individual transmissions MAC addresses. Some wireless technologies
also support techniques to establish distances or positions, allowing
the observer, in some cases, to uniquely associate the MAC address to
a physical device and it associated location. It can happen that an
OTA observer has a legitimate reason to monitor a particular device,
for example for IT support operations. However, it is difficult to
control if another actor also monitors the same station with the goal
of obtaining PII or PCI.
Wireless access network operators: some wireless access networks are
only offered to users or devices matching specific requirements, such
as device type (e.g., IoT-only networks, factory operational
networks). Therefore, operators can attempt to identify the devices
(or the users) connecting to the networks under their care. They can
use the MAC address to represent an identified device.
Network access providers: wireless access networks are often
considered beyond the first 2 layers of the OSI model. For example,
several regulatory or legislative bodies can group all OSI layers
into their functional effect of allowing network communication
between machines. In this context, entities operating access
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
networks can see their liability associated to the activity of
devices communicating through the networks that these entities
operate. In other contexts, operators assign network resources based
on contractual conditions (e.g., fee, bandwidth fair share). In
these scenarios, these operators may attempt to identify the devices
and the users of their networks. They can use the MAC address to
represent an identified device.
Over the wire internal (OTWi) observers: because the device wireless
MAC address continues to be present over the wire if the
infrastructure connection device (e.g. access point) functions as a
Layer 2 bridge, observers may be positioned over the wire and read
transmission MAC addresses. Such capability supposes that the
observer has access to the wired segment of the broadcast domain
where the frames are exchanged. In most networks, such capability
requires physical access to an infrastructure wired device in the
broadcast domain (e.g. switch closet), and is therefore not
accessible to all.
Over the wired external (OTWe) observers: beyond the broadcast
domain, frames headers are removed by a routing device, and a new
Layer 2 header is added before the frame is transmitted to the next
segment. The personal device MAC address is not visible anymore,
unless a mechanism copies the MAC address into a field that can be
read while the packet travels onto the next segment (e.g. pre-
[RFC4941] and pre- [RFC7217] IPv6 addresses built from the MAC
address). Therefore, unless this last condition exists, OTWe
observers are not able to see the device MAC address.
3.3. The Trust and the Environments
The surface of PII exposures that can drive MAC address randomization
depends on the environment where the device operates, on the presence
and nature of other devices in the environment, and on the type of
network the device is communicating through. Therefore, a device can
express an identity (such as a MAC address) that can be stable over
time if trust with the environment is established, or that can be
temporal if an identity is required for a service in an environment
where trust has not been established. Trust is not a binary
currency. Thus it is useful to distinguish what trust a personal
device may establish with the different entities at play in a L2
domain:
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
1. Full trust: there are environments where a personal device
establishes a trust relationship and can share a stable device
identity with the access network devices (e.g., access point and
WLC), the services beyond the access point in the L2 broadcast
domain (e.g. DHCP, AAA). The personal device (or its user) has
confidence that its identity is not shared beyond the L2
broadcast domain boundary.
2. Selective trust: in other environments, the device may not be
willing to share a stable identity with some elements of the
Layer 2 broadcast domain, but may be willing to share a stable
identity with other elements. For example, a device may want to
change the MAC address it uses to communicate with the access
point while maintaining the same IP address across the MAC
address rotation (thus expressing a stable identity to the DHCP
server). That stable identity may or may not be the same for
different services.
3. Zero trust: in other environments, the device may not be willing
to share any stable identity with any entity reachable through
the Layer 2 broadcast domain, and may express a temporal identity
to each of them. That temporal identity may or not be the same
for different services.
This trust relationship naturally depends on the relationship between
the user of the personal device and the operator of the service.
Thus, it is useful to observe the typical trust structure of common
environments:
A. Residential settings under the control of the user: this is
typical of a home network with Wi-Fi in the LAN and Internet
connection. In this environment, the MAC address activity may be
detectable beyond the home walls. However, if traffic is
encrypted (e.g. WPA3), some protection for OTA eavesdropping can
be assumed. The wire segment within the broadcast domain is
under the control of the user, and is therefore usually not at
risk of hosting an eavesdropper. Full trust is typically
established at this level. The device trusts the access point
and all L2 domain entities beyond the access point. Traffic over
the Internet does not expose the MAC address if it is not copied
to another field before routing happens.
B. Managed residential settings: examples of this type of
environment include shared living facilities and other collective
environments where an operator manages the network for the
residents. The OTA exposure is similar to that of a home. A
number of devices larger than in a standard home may be present,
and the operator may be requested to provide IT support to the
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
residents. Therefore, the operator may need to identify a device
activity in real time, but may also need to analyze logs so as to
understand a past reported issue. For both activities, a device
identification associated to the session is needed. Full trust
is often established in this environment, at the scale of a
series of a few sessions.
C. Public guest networks: public hotspots, such as in shopping
malls, hotels, stores, trains stations and airports are typical
of this environment. The guest network operator may be legally
mandated to identify devices or users or may have the option to
leave all devices and users untracked. In this environment,
trust is commonly not established with any element of the L2
broadcast domain (Zero trust model by default).
D. Enterprises (with BYOD): users may be provided corporate devices
or may bring their own devices. The devices are not directly
under the control of a corporate IT team. Trust may be
established as the device joins the network. Some enterprise
models will mandate full trust, others, considering the BYOD
nature of the device, will allow selective trust.
E. Managed enterprises: in this environment, users are typically
provided with corporate devices, and all connected devices are
managed, for example through a Mobile Device Management (MDM)
profile installed on the device. Full trust is created as the
MDM profile is installed.
3.4. The Purpose of Device Identification and Associated Problems
Many network functional devices offering a service to a personal
device use the device MAC address to maintain service continuity.
Wireless access points and controllers use the MAC address to
validate the device connection context, including protocol
capabilities, confirmation that authentication was completed, QoS or
security profiles, encryption key material. Some advanced access
points and controllers also include upper layer functions which
purpose is covered below. A device changing its MAC address, without
another recorded device identity, would cause the access point and
the controller to lose these parameters. As such, the Layer 2
infrastructure does not know that the device (with its new MAC
address) is authorized to communicate through the network. The
encryption keying material is not identified anymore (causing the
access point to fail decrypting the device traffic, and fail
selecting the right key to send encrypted traffic to the device). In
short, the entire context needs to be rebuilt, and a new session
restarted. The time consumed by this procedure breaks any flow that
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
needs continuity or short delay between packets on the device (e.g.
real-time audio, video, AR/VR etc.) The 802.11i Standard recognizes
that a device may leave the network and come back after a short time
window. As such, the standard suggests that the infrastructure
should keep the context for a device up to one hour after the device
was last seen. MAC address rotation in this context can cause
resource exhaustion on the wireless infrastructure and the flush of
contexts, including for devices that are simply in temporal sleep
mode.
Other devices in the Layer 2 broadcast domain also use the MAC
address to know whether and where to forward frames. MAC rotation
can cause these devices to exhaust their resources, holding in memory
traffic for a device which port location can no longer be found. As
these infrastructure devices also implement a cache (to remember the
port position of each known device), too frequent MAC rotation can
cause resources exhaustion and the flush of older MAC addresses,
including for devices that did not rotate their MAC. For the RCM
device, these effects translate into session discontinuity and return
traffic losses.
In wireless contexts, 802.1X authenticators rely on the device and
user identity validation provided by a AAA server to open their port
to data transmission. The MAC address is used to verify that the
device is in the authorized list, and the associated key used to
decrypt the device traffic. A change in MAC address causes the port
to be closed to the device data traffic until the AAA server confirms
the validity of the new MAC address. Therefore, MAC rotation can
interrupt the device traffic, and cause a strain on the AAA server.
DHCP servers, without a unique identification of the device, lose
track of which IP address is validly assigned. Unless the RCM device
releases the IP address before the rotation occurs, DHCP servers are
at risk of scope exhaustion, causing new devices (and RCM devices) to
fail to obtain a new IP address. Even if the RCM device releases the
IP address before the rotation occurs, the DHCP server typically
holds the released IP address for a certain duration, in case the
leaving MAC would return. As the DHCP server cannot know if the
release is due to a temporal disconnection or a MAC rotation, the
risk of scope address exhaustion exists even in cases where the IP
address is released.
Routers keep track of which MAC address is on which interface. MAC
rotation can cause MAC address cache exhaustion, but also the need
for frequent ARP and inverse ARP exchanges.
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
In residential settings (environments type A), policies can be in
place to control the traffic of some devices (e.g. parental control,
block-list devices). These policies are often based on the device
MAC address. Rotation of the MAC address removes the possibility for
such control.
In residential settings (environments type A) and in enterprises
(environments types D and E), device recognition and ranging may be
used for IoT-related functionalities (door unlock, preferred light
and temperature configuration, etc.) These functions often rely on
the detection of the device wireless MAC address. MAC address
rotation breaks the services based on such model.
In managed residential settings (environments types B) and in
enterprises (environments types D and E), the network operator is
often requested to provide IT support. With MAC address rotation,
real time support is only possible if the user is able to provide the
current MAC address. Service improvement support is not possible if
the MAC address that the device had at the (past) time of the
reported issue is not known at the time the issue is reported.
3.5. Scenario Mapping Table
Section 3.4discusses different environments, different settings, and
the expectations of users and network operators. Table 1 summarizes
the expected degree of trust, network adim responsbilitly, complexity
of supported network services and network support expectation from
the user
+==================+========+=========+==========+=================+
| Network Location | Trust | Network | Network | Network Support |
| | Degree | Admin | Services | Expectation |
+==================+========+=========+==========+=================+
| Home | High | User | Medium | Low |
+------------------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------+
| Campus (BYOD) | Medium | IT | Complex | Medium |
+------------------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------+
| Enterprise (MDM) | High | IT | Complex | High |
+------------------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------+
| Hospitality | Low | IT | Simple | Medium |
+------------------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------+
| Public WiFi | Low | ISP | Simple | Low |
+------------------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------+
Table 1: Scenario Mapping Table
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
For example: a Home network is considered to be trusted and safe.
Users expect a simple procedure to connect to their home network.
All devices in the home network trust each other. Privacy within the
Layer 2 domain is not a major concern. The Home network can also
include many IoT devices, which need to be simple to onboard and
manage. The home user commonly expects the network operator to
protect the home network from external threats (attacks from the
Internet). The home user also commonly expects simple policy
features (e.g., Parental Control). Most home users do not expect to
need networking skills to manage their home network.
On the other end of the spectrum, Public Wi-Fi is often considered to
be untrusted. Privacy is the number one concern for the user. Most
users connect to Public Wi-Fi only require imple Internet
connectivity service, and expect only limited to no technical
support.
3.6. Requirements Formulation
The section describes the requirements for Randomized MAC-Address
Changes:
REQ1 The network must not make any assumption about client MAC
address persistence. MAC address change must happen while
allowing for service continuity. If a service is interrupted
during the RCM process, there must be a formal mechanism for
the client and the network to exchange about the interruption.
REQ2 During duration of the services, the device shoud not change
the identity. Any change of identity may result re-
authentication and interrupt of the current network services.
REQ3 Survey the current standards that use MAC address as a device
identifier in the protocol. Make recommendation to the working
groups to remove the dependency.
REQ4 Work as liaison with external standard bodies such as IEEE, BBF
and WBA to align with use cases and requirements.
REQ5 Identify a secure mechanism to authenticate and exchange
network identity to the device.
REQ6 Identify a secure mechanism to inform the device about the type
of network the device is connecting to (e.g. public Wi-Fi,
enterprise, home), allowing the user to select the device
identity (or identities) accordingly.
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
REQ7 Identify a secure mechanism for the network to request device
identity. Upon successful authentication, the network may
provide the device a temporary network-based marker to use the
network services.
REQ8 Identify a secure mechanism for the device to notify the
network prior to update the MAC address.
4. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
5. Security Considerations
Privacy considerations are discussed throughout this document.
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
7. Informative References
[IEEE.802-1D.1993]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local area networks
- Media access control (MAC) bridges", IEEE Standard
802.1D, July 1993.
[IEEE.802-1Y.1990]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Source
Routing Tutorial for End System Operation", IEEE Standard
802.1Y, September 1990.
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RCM Use Cases October 2021
[IEEE.802.15.4P_2014]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for local and metropolitan area
networks - Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (LR-WPANs) - Amendment 7: Physical Layer for Rail
Communications and Control (RCC)", IEEE 802.15.4p-2014,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6809836, 2 May 2014,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
opac?punumber=6809834>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC5176] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 5176,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5176, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5176>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses
Jerome Henry
Cisco Systems
United States of America
Email: jerhenry@cisco.com
Yiu L. Lee
Comcast
1800 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
United States of America
Email: yiu_lee@comcast.com
Henry & Lee Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 15]
