Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis
I2NSF WG S. Hares
Internet-Draft R. Moskowitz
Intended status: Informational Huawei
Expires: September 7, 2017 D. Zhang
March 6, 2017
Analysis of Existing work for I2NSF
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis-03.txt
Abstract
This document analyzes the current state of the art for security
management devices and security devices technologies in industries
and the existing IETF work/protocols that are relevant to the
Interface to Network Security Function (I2NSF). The I2NSF focus is
to define data models and interfaces in order to control and monitor
the physical and virtual aspects of network security functions.
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 September 7, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. What is I2NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Structure of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. IETF Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Traffic Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. Middle-box Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3. Security Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. ETSI NFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. ETSI Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. I2NSF Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. OPNFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. OPNFV Moon Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. Gap Analysis for OPNFV Moon Project . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. OpenStack Security Firewall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. Overview of API for Security Group . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Overview of Firewall as a Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. I2NSF Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. CSA Secure Cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. CSA Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.1. CSA Security as a Service (SaaS) . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1.2. Identity Access Management (IAM) . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.3. Data Loss Prevention (DLP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1.4. Web Security (Web) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1.5. Email Security (email)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.1.6. Security Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1.7. Intrusion Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1.8. Security Information and Event Management(SIEM) . . . 27
6.1.9. Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1.10. Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) . . 29
6.1.11. Network Security Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2. I2NSF Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. IEEE security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.1. Port-based Network Access Control [802.1X] . . . . . . . 31
7.2. MAC security (802.1AE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.3. Secure Device Identity [802.1AR] . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. In-depth Review of IETF protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.1. NETCONF and RESTCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.2. I2RS Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.3. NETMOD YANG modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
8.4. COPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.5. PCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.6. NSIS - Next Steps in Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1. Introduction
This documents provides a gap analysis for I2NSF.
1.1. What is I2NSF
A Network Security Function (NSF) ensures integrity, confidentiality
and availability of network communications, detects unwanted
activity, and/or blocks out or at least mitigates the effects of
unwanted activity. NSFs are provided and consumed in increasingly
diverse environments. For example, users of NSFs could consume
network security services offered on multiple security products
hosted one or more service provider,their own enterprises, or a
combination of the two.
The lack of standard interfaces to control and monitor the behavior
of NSFs makes it virtually impossible for security service providers
to automate service offerings that utilize different security
functions from multiple vendors.
The Interface to Network Service Functions (I2NSF) work proposes to
standardize a set of software interfaces to control and monitor the
physical and virtual NSFs. Since different security vendors support
different features and functions, the I2NSF will focus on the flow-
based NSFs that provide treatment to packets or flows such found in
IPS/IDS devices, web filtering devices, flow filtering devices, deep
packet inspection devices, pattern matching inspection devices, and
re-mediation devices.
There are two layers of interfaces envisioned in the I2NSF approach:
o The I2NSF Capability Layer specifies how to control and monitor
NSFs at a functional implementation level. This is the focus for
this phase of the I2NSF Work.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
o The I2NSF Service Layer defines how the security policies of
clients may be expressed and monitored. The Service Layer is out
of scope for this phase of I2NSF's work.
For the I2NSF Capability Layer, the I2NSF work proposes an
interoperable protocol that passes NSF provisioning rules and
orchestration information between the I2NSF client on a network
manager and the I2NSF agent on an NSF. It is envisioned that clients
of the I2NSF interfaces include management applications, service
orchestration systems, network controllers, or user applications that
may solicit network security resources.
The I2NSF work to define this protocol includes the following work:
o defining an informational model that defines the concepts for
standardizing the control and monitoring of NSFs,
o defining a set of YANG data models from the information model that
identifies the data that must be passed,
o creating a capability registry (an IANA registry) that identifies
the characteristics and behaviours of NSFs in vendor-neutral
vocabulary without requiring the NSFs to be standardized.
o examining existing secure communication mechanisms to identify the
appropriate ones for carrying the data that provisions and
monitors information between the NSFs and their management entity
(or entities).
1.2. Structure of this Document
This document provides an analysis of the gaps in the state of art in
the following industry forums:
IETF working groups (Section 2)
ETSI Network Functions Virtualization Industry Specification Group
(ETSI NFV ISG), (Section 3)
OPNFV Open Source Group (Section 4)
Open Stack - Firewall as a service (OpenStack Firewall FaaS)
(Section 5) (http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/
install_neutron-fwaas-agent.html)
Cloud Security Alliance Security (CSA)as a Service (Section 6)
(https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/research/secaas/#_overview)
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
In-Depth Review of Some IETF Protocols (Section 7)
1.3. Terms and Definitions
1.3.1. Requirements 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, BCP 14
[RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant CoAP.
1.3.2. Definitions
The following are a few definitions out of the terminology draft
utilized in this draft. For additional definitions please see:
[I-D.hares-i2nsf-terminology].
Network Security Function (NSF): is a function that is provided as
a set of security-related service function. Typically, an NSF may
be responsible for detecting unwanted activity and blocking/
mitigating the effect of such unwanted activity in order to fulfil
the service requirements. The NSF can help in supporting
communication stream integrity and confidentiality.
Cloud Data Center (DC): A data center that may/may not be run on
the premises of enterprises, but has compute/storage resources
that can be requested or purchased by the enterprises. The
enterprise is actually getting a virtual data center. The Cloud
Security Alliance (CSA) (http://cloudsecurityalliance.org) focuses
on adding security to this environment. A specific research topic
is security as a service within the cloud data center.
Cloud-based security functions: Network Security Functions (NSFs)
that may be hosted and managed by service providers or a different
administrative entity.
Domain: The term Domain in this draft has the following different
connotations in different scenarios:
* Client--Provider relationship, i.e. client requesting some
network security functions from its provider;
* Domain A - Domain B relationship, i.e. one operator domain
requesting some network security functions from another
operator domain; or
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
* Applications -- Network relationship, i.e. an application (e.g.
cluster of servers) requesting some functions from network,
etc.
The domain context is important because it indicates the
interactions the security is focused on.
I2NSF server/agent: A software instance that implements a network
security function that receives provisioning information and
requests operational data (e.g. monitoring data) from an I2NSF
client. It is also responsible for enforcing the policies that it
receives from an I2NSF client.
I2NSF client: A security client software that utilizes the I2NSF
protocol to read, write or change the provisioning network
security device via software interface using the I2NSF protocol
(denoted as I2RS Agent)
I2NSF Management System: I2NSF Client operates within an network
management system which serves as a collections and distribution
point for security provisioning and filter data.
2. IETF Gap analysis
The IETF gap analysis first examines the IETF mechanisms which have
been developed to secure the IP traffic flows through a network.
Traffic filters have been defined by IETF specifications at the
access points, the middle-boxes, or the routing systems. Protocols
have been defined to carry provisioning and filtering traffic between
a management system and an IP system (router or host system).
Current security work (SACM working group (WG), MILE WG, and DOTS WG)
is providing correlation of events monitored with the policy set by
filters. This section provides a review the filter work, protocols,
and security correlation for monitors.
2.1. Traffic Filters
2.1.1. Overview
The earliest filters defined by IETF were access filters which
controlled the acceptance of IP packet data flows. Additional policy
filters were created as part of the following protocols:
o COPS protocol [RFC2748] for controlling access to networks,
o Next Steps in Signalling (NSIS) work (architecture: [RFC4080]
protocol: [RFC5973]) - for supporting signaling about a data flow
along its path, and
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
o Port Control Protocol (PCP) - allows the IPv4/IPv6 host to control
how IPv6/IPv4 packets are translated and forwarded by NATS and
firewalls.
Today NETMOD and I2RS Working groups are specifying additional
filters in YANG modules to be used as part of the NETCONF or I2RS
enhancement of NETCONF/RESTCONF.
Route filtering is outside the scope of the flow filtering, but the
flow filtering may be impacted by route filtering. An initial model
for routing policy is in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-policy-model]
This section provides an overview of the flow filtering as an
introduction to the I2NSF Gap analysis. Additional detail on
NETCONF, NETMOD, I2RS, PCP, and NSIS is available in Section 7.
2.1.1.1. Data Flow Filters in NETMOD and I2RS
The current work on expanding these filters is focused oncombining a
configuration and monitoring protocol with YANG data models.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model] provides a set of access list filters
which can permit or deny traffic flow based on headers at the MAC
Layer, IP Layer, and Transport Layer. The configuration and
monitoring protocols which can pass the filters are: NETCONF protocol
[RFC6241], RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], and the I2RS
protocol. The NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols install these filters
into forwarding tables. The I2RS protocol uses the ACLs as part of
the filters installed in an ephemeral protocol-independent filter-
based RIB [I-D.kini-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model] which controls the flow
of traffic on interfaces specifically controlled by the I2RS filter-
based FIB.
netconf
+---------------+ / \ +---------------+
| Device: ACLs |-- / \---|Device: ACLS |
| I2RS FB RIB | | I2RS FIB RIB |
|routing policy | | routing policy|
| | | |
===|===============|=============|===============|=
+---------------+ data flow +---------------+
Figure 1
The I2RS protocol is a programmatic interface to the routing system.
At this time, the I2RS is targeted to be extensions to the NETCONF/
RESTCONF protocols to allow the NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol to support
a highly programmatic interface with high bandwidth of data, highly
reliable notifications, and ephemeral state (see
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]). See Section 7.2 on I2RS for
additional details on I2RS.
The vocabulary of the [I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model] is limited, so
additional protocol independent filters has been written for the I2RS
Filter-Based RIBs in [I-D.hares-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model].
One thing important to note is that NETCONF and RESTCONF manage
device layer YANG models. However, as Figure 2 shows, there are
multiple device level, network-wide level, and application level YANG
modules. The access lists defined by the device level forwarding
table may be impacted by the routing protocols, the I2RS ephemeral
protocol independent Filter-Based FIB, or some network-wide security
issue (IPS/IDS).
+--------------------------------------------+
|Application Network Wide: Intent |
+--------------------------------------------+
|Network-wide level: L3SM L3VPN service model|
+--------------------------------------------+
|Device level: Protocol Independent: I2RS |
| RIB, Topology, Filter-Based RIB |
+--------------------------------------------+
|Device Level:Protocol YANG modules |
| (ISIS, OSPF, BGP, EVPN, L2VPN, L3VPN, etc.)
+--------------------------------------------+
| Device level: IP and System: NETMOD Models |
| (config and oper-state), tunnels, |
| forwarding filters |
+--------------------------------------------+
Figure 2 Levels of YANG modules
2.1.1.2. I2NSF Gap analysis
The gap is that none of the current work on these filters considers
all the variations of data necessary to do IPS/IDS, web-filters,
stateful flow-based filtering, security-based deep packet inspection,
or pattern matching with re-mediation. The I2RS Filter-Based RIB
work is the closest associated work, but the focus has not been on
IDS/IPS, web-filters, security-based deep packet inspection, or
pattern matching with re-mediation.
The I2RS Working group (I2RS WG) is focused on the routing system so
the requisite security expertise for such NSFs (IDP/IPS, Web-filter,
security-based deep-packet inspection, etc.) has not been targeted
for this WG.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
Another gap is there is no capability registry (an IANA registry)
that identifies the characteristics and behaviours of NSFs in vendor-
neutral vocabulary without requiring the NSFs to be standardized.
What I2NSF can use from NETCONF/RESTCONF and I2RS
I2NSF should consider using NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol and the I2RS
proposed enhancement to the NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol.
2.1.2. Middle-box Filters
2.1.2.1. Midcom
Midcom Summary: MIDCOM developed the protocols for applications to
communicate with middle boxes. However, MIDCOM have not been used by
the industry for a long time. A main reason is that MIDCOM had a lot
of IPR encumbered technology and IPR was likely a bigger problem for
IETF at that time than it is today. MIDCOM is not specific to SIP.
It was very much oriented to NAT/FW devices. SIP was just one
application that needed the functionality. MIDCOM is reservation-
oriented and there was an expectation that the primary deployment
environment would be VoIP and real-time conferencing, including SIP,
H.323, and other reservation-oriented protocols. There was an
assumption that there would be some authoritative service that would
have a view into endpoint sessions and be able to authorize (or not)
resource allocation requests. In other words, there is a trust model
in MIDCOM that may not be applicable to endpoint-driven requests
without some sort of trusted authorization mechanisms/tools.
Therefore, there is a specific information model applied to security
devices, and security device requests, that was developed in the
context of an SNMP MIB. There is also a two-stage reservation model,
which was specified in order to allow better resource management.
Why I2NSF is Different from Midcom
MIDCOM is different from I2NSF because its SNMP scheme does not work
with the virtual network security functions (vNSF) management.
MidCom RFCs:
[RFC3303] - Midcom architecture
[RFC5189] - Midcom Protocol Semantics
[RFC3304] - Midcom protocol requirements
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
2.1.3. Security Work
2.1.3.1. Overview
Today's NSFs in security devices can handle flow-based security by
providing treatment to packets/flows, such as IPS/IDS, Web filtering,
flow filtering, deep packet inspection, or pattern matching and re-
mediation. These flow-based security devices are managed and
provisioned by network management systems.
No standardized set of interoperable interfaces control and manage
the NSFs so that a central management system can be used across
security devices from multiple Vendors. I2NSF work plan is to
standardize a set of interfaces by which control and management of
NSFs may be invoked, operated, and monitored by:
Creating an information model that defines concepts required for
standardizing the control and monitoring of NSFs, and from the
information model create data models. (The information model will
be used to get early agreement on key technical points.)
Creating a capability registry (at IANA) that enables the
characteristics and behavior of NSFs to be specified using a
vendor-neutral vocabulary without requiring the NSFs themselves to
be standardized.
Defining the requirements for an I2NSF protocol to pass this
traffic. (Ideally by re-using existing protocols.)
The flow-filtering configuration and management must fit into the
existing security area's work plan. This section considers how the
I2NSF fits into the security area work under way in the SACM
(Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring), DOTS (DDoS Open
Threat Signalling), and MILE (Management Incident Lightweight
Exchange).
2.1.3.2. Security Work and Filters
In the proposed I2NSF work plan, the I2NSF security network
management system controls many NSF nodes via the I2NSF Agent. This
control of data flows is similar to the COPS example in Section 7.4.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
+------------+
| I2NSF |
| Client |
| |
| security |
| NMS system |
+------------+
+-----+ / \ +-----+
|I2NSF|--/ \---|I2NSF|
|Agent| |Agent|
| | | |
| NSF | | NSF |
--| ----|------------|-----|-----
+-----+ data flow +-----+
Figure 2
The other security protocols work to interact within the network to
provide additional information in the following way:
o SACM [I-D.ietf-sacm-architecture] describes an architecture which
tries to determine if the end-point security policies and the
reality (denoted as security posture) align.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology] defines posture as the configuration
and/or status of hardware or software on an endpoint as it
pertains to an organization's security policy. Filters can be
considered on the configuration or status pieces that needs to be
monitored.
o DOTS (DDoS Open Threat Signalling) - is working on coordinating
the mitigation of DDoS attacks. A part of DDoS attach mitigation
is to provide lists of addresses to be filtered via IP header
filters.
o MILE (Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange) - is working on
creating a standardized format for incident and indicator reports,
and creating a protocol to transport this information. The
incident information MILE collects may cause changes in data-flow
filters on one or more NSFs.
2.1.3.3. I2NSF interaction
The network management system that the I2NSF client resides on may
interact with other clients or agents developed for the work ongoing
in the SACM, DOTS, and MILES working groups. This section describes
how the addition of I2NSF's ability to control and monitor NSF
devices is compatible and synergistic with these existing efforts.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
+----------+ +------+
+--------+ | security |====| DOTS |
|SACNM | | NMS | |client|---+
|consumer| |..........|\ +------+ |
+--------+==|SACM *1 | \ |
+----|repository| \ |
| |..........| +-------+ |
| | I2NSF | |MILES | |
+------|-+ | client | |client | |
|SACM | +----------+ +-----:-+ |
|Info. | / \ : |
|provider| / \ : |
+--------+ / \ : |
+-----+ / \ +-----+ : |
|I2NSF|--/ \---|I2NSF| : |
| | | | : |
| | |MILES|.: |
| | |Agent| |
| | |DOTS | |
| | |Agent|-------+
--| ----|----------------|-----|-----
+-----+ data flow +-----+
*1 - this is the SACM Controller (CR) with
its broker/proxy/repository show as
described in the SACM architecture.
Figure 3
Figure 3 provides a diagram of a system in which the I2NSF, SACM,
DOTS and MILE client-agent or consumer-broker-provider are deployed
together. The following are possible positive interactions these
scenario might have:
o An security network management system (NMS) can contain a SACM
repository and be connected to SACM information providers and SACM
consumers. The I2NSF may provide one of the ways to change the
forwarding filters.
o The security NMS may also be connected to DOTS DDoS clients
managing the information and configuring the rules. The I2NSF may
provide one of the ways to change forwarding filters.
o The MILE client on a security network management system talking to
the MILE agent on the node may react to the incidents by using
I2NSF to set filters. DOTS creates black-lists, but does not have
a complete set of filters.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
2.1.3.4. Benefits from the Interaction
I2NSF's ability to provide a common interoperable and vendor neutral
interface may allow the security NMS to use a single change to change
filters. SACM provides an information model to describe end-points,
but does not link this directly to filters.
DOTS creates black-lists based on source and destination IP address,
transport port number, protocol ID, and traffic rate. Like ACLs
defined NETMOD, the DOTS black-lists are not sufficient for all
filters or control desired by the NSF boxes.
The incident data captured by MILE will not have enough filter
information to provide NSF devices with general services. The I2NSF
will be able to handle the MILE incident data and create alerts or
reports for other security systems.
3. ETSI NFV
3.1. ETSI Overview
Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) provides service providers
with flexibility, cost effective and agility to offer their services
to customers. One such service is the network security function
which guards the exterior of a service provider or its customers.
However, the exterior network beyond the service provider NSFs or its
customer's NSFs is becoming extremely narrow as NSFs are becoming
more pervasive in any portion of networks (service providers,
customers, or access networks).
The flexibility and agility of NFV encourages service providers to
provide different products to address business trends in their market
to provide better service offerings to their end user. A traditional
product such as the network security function (NSF) may be broken
into multiple virtual devices each hosted from another vendor. In
the past, network security devices may have been sourced from a small
set of vendors - but in the NFV version of NSF devices, this reduced
set of sources will not provide a competitive edge. Due to this
market shift, the network security vendors are realizing that the
proprietary provisioning protocols and formats of data may be a
liability. Out of the NFV work has arisen a desire for a single
interoperable network security device provisioning and control
protocol.
The I2NSF framework is complementary to the NFV and other security
frameworks. The I2NSF management protocol will be deployed in
networks to provide a common management protocol to manage NSF
software/devices whether the devices are physical or virtual. The
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
ETSI NFV security is also deployed along-side other security
functions (AAA, SACM, DOTS, or MILE devices) and deep-packet stateful
inspections.
The ETSI Network Functions Virtualization: NFV security: Security and
Trust Guidance document (ETSI NFV SEC 003 1.1.1 (2014-12)) indicates
that multiple administrative domains will deployed in carrier
networks. One example of these multiple domains is hosting of
multiple tenant domains (telecom service providers) on a single
infrastructure domain (infrastructure service) as Figure 4 shows.
The ETSI Inter-VNFM document (aka Ve-Vnfn) between the element
management system and the Virtual network function is the equivalent
of the interface between the I2NSF client on a management system and
the I2NSF agent on the network security feature VNF.
....................
+--: OSS/BSS :
| ....................
|
| +-------------------------+
| | |
| | ........ ........ |
| | : EMS1 : : EMS : | ETSI inter-VNFM
| | ....||... ...||... | (Ve-Vnfn)
| | || || ==========I2NSF interface
| | ....||... ...||... |
| | : VNF1 : : VNF1 : | Tenant domain
| | ....||... ...||... |
''''''''||'''''''''||''''''''''
| | ....||..... ...||...... | infrastructure
| | :virtual : :virtual : | domain
| | :computing: :computing: | with virtual
| | ........... ........... | network
| | +=====================+ ---------
| | | virtualization layer| |
| | +=====================+ |
| | ........... .......... .......... |
|====:computing: :storage : :network : |
| :hardware : :hardware: :hardware: |
| ........... .......... .......... |
| hardware resources |
+-----------------------------------+
Figure 4
The ETSI proof-of-concept demonstrations have been done for the
security proof of concepts:
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
o #16 - NFVIaaS with Secure, SDN controlled WAN Gateway,
3.2. I2NSF Gap Analysis
The I2NSF protocol/interface can be deployed for security devices
along-side the network/host configuration done by NETCONF/RESTCONF or
the routing system interface provided by I2RS that handles.
In the current NFV-related architecture, there is no interoperable
protocol defined between a security manager and various NSF devices
to provision security functions. The result is that service
providers have to manage the interoperability security manager and
different NSF devices using proprietary protocols. In response to
this problem, the device manufacturers and the service providers have
begun to discuss an I2NSF protocol for interoperable passing of
provisioning and filter in formation.
Open source work (such as OPNFV) provides a common code base on which
providers may start their NFV development work. However, this code
base faces the same problem. There is no defacto standard protocol.
4. OPNFV
The OPNFV (www.opnfv.org) is a carrier-grade integrated, open source
platform focused on accelerating the introduction of new Network
Functions Virtualization (NFV) products and service. The OPNFV Moon
project is focused on adding the security interface for a network
management system within the tenant NFVs and the infrastructure NFVs
(as shown in Figure 4). This section provides an overview of the
OPNFV Moon project and a gap analysis between I2NSF and the OPNFV
Moon Project.
4.1. OPNFV Moon Project
The OPNFV Moon project (https://wiki.opnfv.org) is a security
management system. NFV uses cloud computing technologies to
virtualize the resources and automate the control. The Moon project
is working on a security manager for the cloud computing
infrastructure (https://wiki.opnfv.org/moon). The Moon project
proposes to provision a set of different cloud resources/services for
VNFs (Virtualized Network Functions) while managing the isolation of
VNS, protection of VNFs, and monitoring of VNS. Moon is creating a
security management system for OPNFV with security managers to
protect different layers of the NFV infrastructure. The Moon project
is choosing various security project mechanisms "a la carte" to
enforcement related security managers. A security management system
integrates mechanisms of different security aspects. This project
intends propose a security manager that specifies users' security
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
requirements. It will also enforce the security managers through
various mechanisms like authorization for access control, firewall
for networking, isolation for storage, logging for tractability, etc.
The Moon security manager operates a VNF security manager at the ETSI
VeVnfm level where the I2NSF protocol is targeted as Figure 5 shows.
This figure also shows how the OPNFV VNF Security project mixes the
I2NSF level with the device level.
The Moon project lists the following gaps in OpenStack:
o No centralized control for compute, storage, and networking. Open
Stack uses Nova for compute and Swift for object storage. Each
system has a configuration file and its own security policy. The
system lacks a synchronization mechanism to build a complete
secure configuration for OPNFV.
o No dynamic control so that if a user obtains the token, so there
is no way to obtain control over the user.
o No customization or flexibility to allow integration into
different vendors,
o No fine grained authorization at user level. Authorization is
only at the API level.
Moon addresses these issues adding authorization, logging, IDS,
enforcement of network policy, and storage protection. Moon release
C (2016) plans to:
o Define an identity federation scenario between OpenStack and
OpenDaylight,
o Implement an authentication driver in ODL to delegate
authentication to OpenStack/Keystone,
o Implement a command line tool for administration and testing,
o Implement a graphic interface for identity management for both
OpenStack and OpenDaylight,
o Set up identity federation testbed,
o Define identity federation scenarios with other SDN controllers,
and
o Define authorization federation scenarios with OpenDaylight.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
Deliverable time frame: Moon Release 3 (mid-year 2016)
....................
+--: OSS/BSS :
| ....................
|
| +-------------------------+
| | |
| | ........ ........ |
| | : EMS1 : : EMS : | ETSI inter-VNFM
| | ....||... ...||... | (Ve-Vnfn)
| | || || ==========I2NSF interface
| | ....||... ...||... | Moon VNF === Moon VNF
| | : : : : | Security Security MGR
| | : VNF1 : : VNF1 : |
| | ....||... ...||... | Tenant domain
''''''''||'''''''''||''''''''''
| | ....||..... ...||...... | infrastructure
| | :virtual : :virtual : | domain
| | :computing: :computing: | with virtual
| | ........... ........... | network
| | +=====================+ |--------
| | | virtualization layer| |
| | +=====================+
| | =============Moon VNF ===Moon VI
| | security project Security MGR
| | ........... .......... .......... |
|====:computing: :storage : :network : |
| :hardware : :hardware: :hardware: |
| ........... .......... .......... |
| hardware resources |
+-----------------------------------+
Figure 5
4.2. Gap Analysis for OPNFV Moon Project
OpenStack Congress does not provide vendor independent systems.
5. OpenStack Security Firewall
OpenStack has advanced features of: a) API for managing security
groups (http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/
section_securitygroups.html) and b) firewalls as a service
(http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/
fwaas_api_abstractions.html).
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
This section provides an overview of this open stack work, and a gap
analysis of how I2NSF provides additional functions
5.1. Overview of API for Security Group
The security group rules provide ingress and egress traffic filters
based on port. The default rule for the group policy drops all
ingress traffic and allows all egress traffic. The group policy
allows users to add additional groups with additional filters that
change the default behaviour. To utilize the security groups, the
networking plug-in for OpenStack must implement the security group
API. The following plug-ins in OpenStack currently implement this
security: ML2, Open vSwitch, Linux Bridge, NEC, and VMware NSX. In
addition, the correct firewall driver must be added to make this
functional.
5.2. Overview of Firewall as a Service
Firewall as a service is an early release of an API that allows early
adopters to test network implementations. It contains APIs with
parameters for firewall rules, firewall policies, and firewall
identifiers. The firewall rules include the following information:
o identification of rule (id, name, description)
o identification tenant rule associated with,
o links to installed firewall policy,
o IP protocol (TCP, UDP, ICMP, or none)
o source and destination IP address
o source and destination port
o action: allow or deny traffic
o status: position and enable/disabled
The firewall policies include the following information:
o identification of the policy (id, name, description),
o identification of tenant associated with,
o ordered list of firewall rules,
o indication if policy can be seen by tenants other than owner, and
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
o indication if firewall rules have been audited.
The firewall table provides the following information:
o identification of firewall (id, name, description),
o tenant associated with this firewall,
o administrative state (up/down),
o status (active, down, pending create, pending delete, pending
update, pending error)
o firewall policy ID this firewall is associated with
5.3. I2NSF Gap analysis
The OpenStack work is preliminary (security groups and firewall as a
service). This work does not allow any of the existing network
security vendors provide a management interface. The OpenStack work
provides an interesting simple set of filters, and may in the future
provide some virtual filter service. However, at this time this open
source work does not address the need for a single management
interfaces for a variety of security devices.
Phase 1 of I2NSF is proposes rules that will include Event-Condition-
Action matches (ECA) rules with:
packet based matches on L2, L3, and L4 headers and/or specific
addresses within these headers, and
context based matches on schedule state and schedule.
basic ations of deny, permit, and mirror,
advanced actions of: IPS signature filtering and URL filtering.
[Editorial note: do we need more matches or actions?]
6. CSA Secure Cloud
6.1. CSA Overview
The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA)(www.cloudsecurityaliance.org)
defined security as a service (SaaS) in their Security as a Service
working group (SaaS WG) during 2010-2012. The CSA SaaS group defined
ten categories of network security
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
SecaaS_V1_0.pdf) and provides implementation guidance for each of
these ten categories. This section provides an overview of the CSA
SaaS working groups documentation and a gap analysis for I2NSF
6.1.1. CSA Security as a Service (SaaS)
The CSA SaaS working group defined the following ten categories, and
provided implementation guidance on these categories:
1. Identity Access Management (IAM)
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_1_IAM_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
2. Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_2_DLP_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
3. Web Security (web)
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_3_Web_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
4. Email Security (email)
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_4_Email_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
5. Security Assessments
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_5_Security_Assessments_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
6. Intrusion Management
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_6_Intrusion_Management_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
7. Security information and Event Management
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_7_SIEM_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
8. Encryption
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_8_Encryption_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
9. Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BCDR)
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_9_BCDR_Implementation_Guidance.pdf), and
10. Network Security
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_10_Network_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf).
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
The sections below give an overview these implementation guidelines.
6.1.2. Identity Access Management (IAM)
document:
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_1_IAM_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
The identity management systems include the following services:
o Centralized Directory Services,
o Access Management Services,
o Identity Management Services,
o Identity Federation Services,
o Role-Based Access Control Services,
o User Access Certification Services,
o Privileged User and Access Management,
o Separation of Duties Services, and
o Identity and Access Reporting Services.
The IAM device communications with the security management system
that controls the filtering of data. The CSA SaaS IAM specification
states that interoperability between IAM devices and secure access
network management systems is a problem. This 2012 implementation
report confirms there is a gap with IAM.
+------------+ +--------+
| IAM device | ---- SLA ------------| secure |
| | Access review | access |
| | security events | NMS |
| | access tracing | |
+---||-------+ Audit report +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 6
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
6.1.3. Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Document:
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_2_DLP_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
The data loss prevention (DLP) services must address:
o origination verification,
o integrity of data,
o confidentiality and access control,
o accountability,
o avoiding false positives on detection, and
o privacy concerns.
The CSA SaaS DLP device communications require that it have the
enforcement capabilities to do the following:
alert and log data loss,
delete data on system or passing through,
filter out (block/quarantine) data,
reroute data,
encrypt data
+------------+ +--------+
| DLP device | ---- SLA ------------| secure |
| | Alert and log | access |
| | delete data | NMS |
| | filter/reroute | |
+---||-------+ encrypt data +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 7
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
6.1.4. Web Security (Web)
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_3_Web_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The web security services must address:
o Web 2.0/Social Media controls,
o Malware and Anti-Virus controls,
o Data Loss Prevention controls (over Web-based services like Gmail
or Box.net),
o XSS, JavaScript and other web specific attack controls
o Web URL Filtering,
o Policy control and administrative management,
o Bandwidth management and quality of service (QoS) capability, and
o Monitoring of SSL enabled traffic.
The CSA SaaS Web services device communications require that it have
the enforcement capabilities to do the following:
alert and log malware or anti-virus data patterns,
delete data (malware and virus) passing through systems,
filter out (block/quarantine) data,
filter Web URLs,
interact with policy and network management systems,
control bandwidth and QoS of traffic, and
monitor encrypted (SSL enabled) traffic,
All of these features either require the I2NSF standardized I2NSF
client to I2NSF agent to provide multi-vendor interoperability.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
+------------+ +--------+
|Web security| ---- SLA ------------| secure |
| | Alert and log | access |
| | delete data | NMS |
| | filter/reroute data | |
| | ensure bandwidth/QOS | |
| | monitor encrypted | |
| | data | |
+---||-------+ encrypt data +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 8
6.1.5. Email Security (email))
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_4_Email_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA Document recommends that email security services must
address:
o Common electronic mail components,
o Electronic mail architecture protection,
o Common electronic mail threats,
o Peer authentication,
o Electronic mail message standards,
o Electronic mail encryption and digital signature,
o Electronic mail content inspection and filtering,
o Securing mail clients, and
o Electronic mail data protection and availability assurance
techniques
The CSA SaaS Email security services requires that it have the
enforcement capabilities to do the following:
provide the malware and spam detection and removal,
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
alert and provide rapid response to email threats,
identify email users and secure remote access to email,
do on-demand provisioning of email services,
filter out (block/quarantine) email data,
know where the email traffic or data is residing (to to regulatory
issues), and
be able to monitor encrypted email,
be able to encrypt email,
be able to retain email records (while abiding with privacy
concerns), and
interact with policy and network management systems.
All of these features require the I2NSF standardized I2NSF client to
I2NSF agent to provide multi-vendor interoperability.
+------------+ +--------+
| Email | ---- SLA ------------| secure |
| security | alert/log malware | access |
| | alert/log email spam | NMS |
| | filter/reroute data | |
| | ensure bandwidth/QOS | |
| | monitor encrypted | |
| | data | |
+---||-------+ encrypt data +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 9
6.1.6. Security Assessment
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_5_Security_Assessments_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA SaaS Security assessment indicates that assessments need to
be done on the following devices:
o hypervisor infrastructure,
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
o network security compliance systems,
o Servers and workstations,
o applications,
o network vulnerabilities systems,
o internal auditor and intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/
IPS), and
o web application systems.
All of these features require the I2NSF working group standardize the
way to pass these assessments to and from the I2NSF client on the
I2NSF management system and the I2NSF Agent.
6.1.7. Intrusion Detection
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_6_Intrusion_Management_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
The CSA SaaS Intrusion detection management includes intrusion
detection through: devices:
o Network traffic inspection, behavioural analysis, and flow
analysis,
o Operating System, Virtualization Layer, and Host Process Events
monitoring,
o Monitoring of Application Layer Events, and
o Correlation Techniques, and other Distributed and Cloud-Based
Capabilities
Intrusion response includes both:
o Automatic, Manual, or Hybrid Mechanisms,
o Technical, Operational, and Process Mechanisms.
The CSA SaaS recommends the intrusion security management systems
include provisioning and monitoring of all of these types of
intrusion detection or intrusion protection devices. Management of
these systems requires:
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
Central reporting of events and alerts,
Administrator notification of intrusions,
Mapping of alerts to Cloud-Layer Tenancy,
Cloud sourcing information to prevent false positives in
detection, and
Allowing for redirection of traffic to allow remote storage or
transmission to prevent local evasion.
In order to be able performing these management actions on NSF
devices from different vendors, the intrusion security management
systems need a standard mangement protocol that all the NSF vendors
support.
+------------+ +--------+
| IDS/IPS | ---- Info ----------| secure |
| security | alert/log intrusion | access |
| | notify administrator | NMS |
| | Map alerts to Tenant | |
| |filter/reroute traffic| |
| | remote data storage | |
+---||-------+ +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 10
The I2NSF manager - I2NSF (server/agent) protocol is designed to fill
this gap.
6.1.8. Security Information and Event Management(SIEM)
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_7_SIEM_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
The Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) receives data
from a wide range of security systems such as Identity management
systems (IAM), data loss prevention (DLP), web security (Web), email
security (email), intrusion detection/prevision (IDS/IPS)),
encryption, disaster recovery, and network security. The SIEM
combines this data into a single streams. All the requirements for
data to/from these systems are replicated in these systems needs to
give a report to the SIEM system.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
A SIEM system would be a prime candidate to have an I2NSF client that
gathers data from an I2NSF Agent associated with these various types
of security systems. The CSA SaaS SIEM functionality document
suggests that one concern is to have standards that allow timely
recording and sharing of data. I2NSF can provide this.
6.1.9. Encryption
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_8_Encryption_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA SaaS encryption implementation guidance document considers
how one implements and manages the following security systems:
Key management systems (KMS), control of keys, and key life cycle;
Shared Secret encryption (Symmetric ciphers),
No-Secret or Public Key Encryption (asymmetric ciphers),
Hashing algorithms,
Digital Signature Algorithms,
Key Establishment Schemes,
Protection of Cryptographic Key Material (FIPS 140-2; 140-3),
Interoperability of Encryption Systems, Key Conferencing, Key
Escrow Systems, and others
Application of Encryption for Data at rest, data in transit, and
data in use;
PKI (including certificate revocation "CRL");
Future application of such technologies as Homomorphic encryption,
Quantum Cryptography, Identity-based Encryption, and others;
Crypto-system Integrity (How bad implementations can under mind a
crypto-system), and
Cryptographic Security Standards and Guidelines
Encryption services typically require that security management
systems be able to provision, monitor, and control the systems that
are being used to encrypt data. This document indicates in the
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
implementation sections that the standardization of interfaces to/
from management systems are key to good key management systems,
encryption systems, and crypto-systems.
6.1.10. Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_9_BCDR_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA SaaS Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)
implementation guidance document considers the systems that implement
the contingency plans and measures designed and implemented to ensure
operational resiliency in the event of any service interruptions.
BC/DR systems includes:
Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery BC/DR as a Service,
including categories such as complete Disaster Recovery as a
Service (DRaaS), and subsets such as file recovery, backup and
archive,
Storage as a Service including object, volume, or block storage;
Cold Site, Warm Site, Hot Site backup plans;
IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service),
and SaaS (Software as a Service);
Insurance (and insurance reporting programs)
Business Partner Agents (business associate agreements);
System Replication (for high availability);
Fail-back to Live Systems mechanisms and management;
Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO);
Encryption (data at rest [DAR], data in motion [DIM], field
level);
Realm-based Access Control;
Service-level Agreements (SLA); and
ISO/IEC 24762:2008, BS25999, ISO 27031, and FINRA Rule 4370
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
These BC/DR systems must handle data backup and recovery, server
backup/recovery, and data center (virtual/physical) backup and
recovery. Recovery as a Service (RaaS) means that the BC/DR services
are being handled by management systems outside the enterprise.
BC/DR requires security management systems to be able to communicate
provisioning, monitor, and control those systems that are being used
to back-up and restore data. An interoperable protocol that allows
provision and control of data center's data, servers, and data center
management devices devices is extremely important to this
application. Recovery as a Service (SaaS) indicates that these
services need to be able to be remotely management.
The CSA SaaS BC/BR documents indicate how important a standardized
I2NSF protocol is.
6.1.11. Network Security Devices
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_10_Network_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA SaaS Network Security implementation recommendation includes
advice on:
How to segment networks,
Network security controls,
Controlling ingress and egress controls such as Firewalls
(Stateful), Content Inspection and Control (Network-based),
Intrusion Detection System/Intrusion Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS),
and Web Application Firewalls,
Secure routing and time,
Denial of Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS)
Protection/Mitigation,
Virtual Private Network (VPN) with Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Connectivity (over SSL), Internet Protocol Security (IPsec)
VPNs, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), and Ethernet Virtual
Private Line (EVPL),
Threat Management,
Forensic Support, and
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
Privileged User/Use Monitoring.
These network security systems require provisioning, monitoring, and
the ability for the security management system to subscribe to
receive logs, snapshots of capture data, and time synchronization.
This document states the following:
"It is critical to understand what monitoring APIs are available
from the CSP, and if they match risk and compliance requirements",
"Network security auditors are challenged by the need to track a
server and its identity from creation to deletion. Audit tracking
is challenging in even the most mature cloud environments, but the
challenges are greatly complicated by cloud server sprawl, the
situation where the number of cloud servers being created is
growing more quickly than a cloud environments ability to manage
them."
A valid threat vector for cloud is the API access. Since a
majority of CSPs today support public API interfaces available
within their networks and likely over the Internet."
The CSA SaaS network security indicates that the I2NSF must be secure
so that the I2NSF Client-Agent protocol does not become a valid
threat vector. In additions, the need for the management protocol
like I2NSF is critical in the sprawl of Cloud environment.
6.2. I2NSF Gap Analysis
The CSA Security as a Service (SaaS) document show clearly that there
is a gap between the ability of the CSA SaaS devices to have a vendor
neutral, inoperable protocol that allow the multiple of network
security devices to communicate passing provisioning and
informational data. Each of the 10 implementation agreements points
to this as a shortcoming. Standard I2NSF YANG models and an I2NSF
protocol are needed according to the CSA SaaS documents.
7. IEEE security
7.1. Port-based Network Access Control [802.1X]
802.1x defines encapsulation of Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP) [RFC3748] over IEEE 802 (EAP over LAN, or EAPOL). It is widely
deployed on both wired and Wi-Fi Networks.
EAP provides support for security from passwords to challenge-
response tokens and public-key infrastructure certificates.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
802.1 has three concepts:
o the supplicant - the user or client who wants to be authenticated
o authentication server - the server doing the authrentication (e.g.
radius server), and
o the authenticator - the device in-between authentication server
and supplicant (e.g. wireless Access Point (AP).
A normal sequence is below:
supplicant authenticator authentication server
=========== =================== ========================
<---- EAP-Request/Identity
EAP-Response/Identity---->
EAP-Response/Identity---gt;
<---------Challenge
<------Challenge
Challenge
response --------->
Challenge
Response --------->
Gap:
This basic service provides access, but today's access use cases are
more complex. IEEE 801.X has ben attched using the Man-in-the-middle
attacks. Another weakness of 802.1X is the speed of the EAP
protocols processing with the radius server.
Note: Editor - more is needed here
7.2. MAC security (802.1AE)
MACsec security secures a link rather than a conversation for 802.1
LANs (VLANs 802.1Q, Provider Bridges 802.1AD). MACsec counters the
802.1X man-in the middle attacks.
MACsec (in 802.1AE) provides MAC-layer encryption over wired networks
by using out-of-band methods for encryption keying. The MACsec Key
Agreement (MKA) Protocol provides the required session keys and
manages the required encryption keys. MKA and MACsec are implemented
after successful authentication using the 802.1x Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) framework. Only hosts link which face
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
the network can be secured with MACSec. These links connect the host
to the network access devices.
Switch using MACsec accepts either MACsec or non-MACsec frames based
on policy set. The NSF controller can set within the switches
configuration whether MACSec frames are accepted. Accepted MACsec
frames are encrypted and protected with an integrity check value
(ICV). The switch after receiving frames from the client, decrypts
them and calculates the correct ICV by using session keys provided by
MKA. The switch compares that ICV to the ICV within the frame. If
they are not identical, the frame is dropped. The switch also
encrypts and adds an ICV to any frames sent over the secured port
(the access point used to provide the secure MAC service to a client)
using the current session key.
The MKA Protocol manages the encryption keys used by the underlying
MACsec protocol. The basic requirements of MKA are defined in
802.1x-REV. The MKA Protocol extends 802.1x to allow peer discovery
with confirmation of mutual authentication and sharing of MACsec
secret keys to protect data exchanged by the peers. MKA protocol ues
EAP-over-LAN (EAPOL) packet. EAP authentication produces a master
session key (MSK) shared by both partners in the data exchange.
Entering the EAP session ID generates a secure connectivity
association key name (CKN). Because the switch is the authenticator,
and the key serer, it can generating a random 128-bit secure
association key (SAK), which it sends it to the client partner. The
client is never a key server and can only interact with a single MKA
entity, the key server. After key derivation and generati
Gap Analysis:
I2NSF Devices must handle the existence of MSEC within the network.
7.3. Secure Device Identity [802.1AR]
802.1AR does the following:
Supports trail of trust from manufacturer to user, and
Defines how a Secure Device Identifier (DevId) may be
cryptographically bound to a device to support device identity
authentication.
DevIDs are composed of a secure device identifier secret and a
secure device identifier credential. These IDs can be controlled
by the product manufacturer (IDevID, an initially installed
identity) or by the end-user (LDevID, a subsequent locally
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
significant identity derived from the IDevID). DevIDs cannot be
be changed by the end-user.
One attack mitigation can be to disable support for DeVIDs or
limit to know DeVIDs.
GAP analysis:
I2NSF controllers need to support 802.1AR device management.
8. In-depth Review of IETF protocols
8.1. NETCONF and RESTCONF
The IETF NETCONF working group has developed the basics of the
NETCONF protocol focusing on secure configuration and querying
operational state. The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] may be run over
TLS [RFC6639] or SSH ([RFC6242]. NETCONF can be expanded to defaults
[RFC6243], handling events ([RFC5277] and basic notification
[RFC6470], and filtering writes/reads based on network access control
models (NACM, [RFC6536]). The NETCONF configuration must be
committed to a configuration data store (denoted as config=TRUE).
YANG models identify nodes within a configuration data store or an
operational data store using a XPath expression (document root ---to
--- target source). NETCONF uses an RPC model and provides protocol
for handling configs (get-config, edit-config, copy-config, delete-
config, lock, unlock, get) and sessions (close-session, kill-
session). The NETCONF Working Group has developed RESTCONF, which is
an HTTP-based protocol that provides a programmatic interface for
accessing data defined in YANG, using the data stores defined in
NETCONF.
RESTCONF supports "two edit condition detections" - time stamp and
entity tag. RESTCONF uses URI encoded path expressions. RESTCONF
provides operations to get remote servers options (OPTIONS), retrieve
data headers (HEAD), get data (GET), create resource/invoke operation
(POST), patch data (PATCH), delete resource (DELETE), or query.
RFCs for NETCONF
o NETCONF [RFC6242]
o NETCONF monitoring [RFC6022]
o NETCONF over SSH [RFC6242]
o NETCONF over TLS [RFC5539]
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
o NETCONF system notification> [RFC6470]
o NETCONF access-control (NACM) [RFC6536]
o RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
o NETCONF-RESTCONF call home [I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home]
o RESTCONF collection protocol
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-collection]
o NETCONF Zero Touch Provisioning [I-D.ietf-netconf-zerotouch]
8.2. I2RS Protocol
Based on input from the NETCONF working group, the I2RS working group
decided to re-use the NETCONF or RESTCONF protocols and specify
additions to these protocols rather than create yet another protocol
(YAP).
The required extensions for the I2RS protocol are in the following
drafts:
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state],
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] (Publication-Subscription
notifications,
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability]
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements]
At this time, NETCONF and RESTCONF cannot handle the ephemeral data
store proposed by I2RS, the publication and subscription
requirements, the traceability, or the security requirements for the
transport protocol and message integrity.
8.3. NETMOD YANG modules
NETMOD developed initial YANG models for interfaces [RFC7223]), IP
address ([RFC7277]), IPv6 Router advertisement ([RFC7277]), IP
Systems ([RFC7317]) with system ID, system time management, DNS
resolver, Radius client, SSH, syslog
([I-D.ietf-netmod-syslog-model]), ACLS ([I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]),
and core routing blocks ([I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg] The routing
working group (rtgwg) has begun to examine policy for routing and
tunnels.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
Protocol specific Working groups have developed YANG models for ISIS
([I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]), OSPF ([I-D.ietf-ospf-yang]), and BGP
([I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model].
BGP Services YANG models have been proposed for
o EVPN [I-D.brissette-bess-evpn-yang],
o L2VPN [I-D.shah-bess-l2vpn-yang],
o L3VPN [I-D.li-bess-l3vpn-yang] and
[I-D.hu-bess-l2vpn-service-yang],
TEAS working group has proposed [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo], and
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-rsvp].
MPLS/PCE/CCAMP groups have proposed the following Yang modules:
o [I-D.raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang]
o [I-D.saad-mpls-static-yang],
o [I-D.zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg],
o [I-D.pkd-pce-pcep-yang], and
o [I-D.zhang-ccamp-transport-ctrlnorth-yang].
8.4. COPS
One early focus on flow filtering based on policy enforcement of
traffic entering a network is the 1990s COPS [RFC2748] design (PEP
and PDP) as shown in Figure 11. The COPS policy decision points
(PDP) managed network-wide policy (e.g. ACLs) by installing this
policy in policy enforcement points (PEPs) on the edge of the
network. These PEPs had firewall-like functions that control what
data flows into the network at a PEP point, and data flow out of a
network at a PEP. [RFC3084] describes COPS usages for policy
provisioning.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
PDP
+-----+ / \ +-----+
|PEP1 |--/ \---|PEP2 |
| | ACL/policy | |
| | | |
--| ----|------------|-----|-----
+-----+ data flow +-----+
Figure 11
Why COPS is no longer used
Network security today uses specific devices (IDS/IPS, NAT firewall,
etc.) with specific policies and profiles for each types of device.
No common protocol or policy format exists between the policy manager
(PDP) and security enforcement points.
COPs RFCs: [RFC4261], [RFC2940], [RFC3084], and [RFC3483].
Why I2NSF is Different from COPS
COPS was a protocol for policy related to Quality of Service (QoS)
and signaling protocols (e.g. RSVP) (security, flow, and others).
I2NSF creates a common protocol between security policy decision
points (SPDP) and security enforcement points (SEP). Today's
security devices currently only use proprietary protocols.
Manufacturers would like a security specific policy enforcement
protocol rather than a generic policy protocol.
8.5. PCP
As indicated by the name, the Port Control Protocol (PCP) enables an
IPv4 or IPv6 host to flexibly manage the IP address and port mapping
information on Network Address Translators (NATs) or firewalls, to
facilitate communication with remote hosts.
PCP RFCs:
[RFC6887]
[RFC7225]
[I-D.ietf-pcp-authentication]
[I-D.ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives]
[I-D.ietf-pcp-proxy]
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
Why is I2NSF Different from PCP:
Here are some aspects that I2NSF is different from PCP:
o PCP only supports management of port and address information
rather than any other security functions
8.6. NSIS - Next Steps in Signaling
NSIS aims to standardize an IP signaling protocol (RSVP) along the
data path for end points to request their unique QoS characteristics,
unique FW policies or NAT needs (RFC5973) that are different from the
FW/NAT original settings. The requests are communicated directly to
the FW/NAT devices. NSIS is like east-west protocols that require
all involved devices to fully comply to make it work.
NSIS is path-coupled; it is possible to message every participating
device along a path without having to know its location, or its
location relative to other devices (This is particularly a pressing
issue when one or more NATs present in the network, or when trying to
locate appropriate tunnel endpoints).
clients----I2NSF controller
| client
|
| I2NSF
| server/agent
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| host | |firewall| | host |
|device-1|-------|device-2|-------|device-3|
+--------+ RSVP +--------+ RSVP +--------+
-----NSIS-----------------------
Why I2NSF is Different from NSIS:
o The I2NSF request does not require all network functions in a path
to comply, but it is a protocol between the I2NSF client and the
I2NSF Agent/Server
o I2NSF defines client (applications) oriented descriptors
(profiles, or attributes) to request/negotiate/validate the
network security functions that are not on the local premises.
Why I2NSF may have higher chance to be deployed than NSIS:
o OpenStack already has a proof-of-concept/preliminary
implementation, but the specification is not complete. IETF can
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
play an active role to make the specification for I2NSF is
complete. IETF can complete and extend the OpenStack
implementation to provide an interoperable specification that can
meet the needs and requirements of operators and is workable for
suppliers of the technology. The combination of a carefully
designed interoperable IETF specification with an open-source code
development OpenStack will leverage the strengths of the two
communities, and expand the informal ties between the two groups.
A software development cycle has the following components:
architecture, design specification, coding, and interoperability
testing. The IETF can take ownership of the first two steps, and
provide expertise and a good working atmosphere (in hack-a-thons)
in the last two steps for OpenStack or other open-source coders.
o IETF has the expertise in security architecture and design for
interoperable protocols that span controllers/routers, middle-
boxes, and security end-systems.
o IETF has a history of working on interoperable protocols or
virtualized network functions (L2VPN, L3VPN) that are deployed by
operators in large scale devices. IETF has a strong momentum to
create virtualized network functions (see SFC WG in routing) to be
deployed in network boxes. [Note: We need to add SACM and others
here].
9. IANA Considerations
No IANA considerations exist for this document.
10. Security Considerations
No security considerations are involved with a gap analysis.
11. Contributors
The following people have contributed to this document: Hosnieh
Rafiee, and Myo Zarny. Myo Zarny provided the authors with extensive
comments, great suggestions, and valuable insights on alternative
views.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.brissette-bess-evpn-yang]
Brissette, P., Shah, H., Li, Z., Tiruveedhula, K., Singh,
T., and I. Hussain, "Yang Data Model for EVPN", draft-
brissette-bess-evpn-yang-01 (work in progress), December
2015.
[I-D.hares-i2nsf-terminology]
Hares, S., Strassner, J., Lopez, D., and L. Xia, "I2NSF
Terminology", draft-hares-i2nsf-terminology-00 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[I-D.hares-i2rs-info-model-service-topo]
Hares, S., Wu, W., Wang, Z., and J. You, "An Information
model for service topology", draft-hares-i2rs-info-model-
service-topo-03 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.hares-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model]
Hares, S., Wu, Q., and R. White, "Filter-Based Packet
Forwarding ECA Policy", draft-hares-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-
model-02 (work in progress), February 2016.
[I-D.hu-bess-l2vpn-service-yang]
hu, f., Chen, R., and J. Yao, "L2VPN Service YANG Model",
draft-hu-bess-l2vpn-service-yang-00 (work in progress),
March 2016.
[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-11 (work in
progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state]
Haas, J. and S. Hares, "I2RS Ephemeral State
Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-23 (work in
progress), November 2016.
[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-11 (work in progress), May 2016.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements]
Hares, S., Migault, D., and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security
Related Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-
requirements-17 (work in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Prieto, "Requirements for
Subscription to YANG Datastores", draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-
requirements-09 (work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model]
Wang, L., Ananthakrishnan, H., Chen, M.,
amit.dass@ericsson.com, a., Kini, S., and N. Bahadur, "A
YANG Data Model for Routing Information Base (RIB)",
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-07 (work in progress),
January 2017.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
Bahadur, N., Kini, S., and J. Medved, "Routing Information
Base Info Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-10 (work
in progress), December 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability]
Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to
the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-11 (work
in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-usecase-reqs-summary]
Hares, S. and M. Chen, "Summary of I2RS Use Case
Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-usecase-reqs-summary-01
(work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology]
Dong, J. and X. Wei, "A YANG Data Model for Layer-2
Network Topologies", draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-
topology-03 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo]
Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A Data Model for Network
Topologies", draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-12 (work in
progress), March 2017.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., Patel, K., Hares, S., D'Souza, K.,
Bansal, D., Clemm, A., Zhdankin, A., Jethanandani, M., and
X. Liu, "BGP Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-model-01 (work in progress), January 2016.
[I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]
Litkowski, S., Yeung, D., Lindem, A., Zhang, J., and L.
Lhotka, "YANG Data Model for ISIS protocol", draft-ietf-
isis-yang-isis-cfg-02 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model]
Litkowski, S., Shakir, R., Tomotaki, L., Ogaki, K., and K.
D'Souza, "YANG Data Model for L3VPN service delivery",
draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-05 (work in progress),
March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home]
Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home",
draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-06 (work in progress), May
2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-04 (work in
progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-collection]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Collection Resource", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-
collection-00 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-zerotouch]
Watsen, K., Clarke, J., and M. Abrahamsson, "Zero Touch
Provisioning for NETCONF Call Home (ZeroTouch)", draft-
ietf-netconf-zerotouch-02 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]
Bogdanovic, D., Sreenivasa, K., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
"Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model",
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-02 (work in progress), March
2015.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg]
Lhotka, L. and A. Lindem, "A YANG Data Model for Routing
Management", draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-19 (work in
progress), May 2015.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[I-D.ietf-netmod-syslog-model]
Wildes, C. and K. Sreenivasa, "SYSLOG YANG model", draft-
ietf-netmod-syslog-model-03 (work in progress), March
2015.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-yang]
Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, J., Bogdanovic, D., and K.
Sreenivasa, "Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", draft-
ietf-ospf-yang-00 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-authentication]
Wasserman, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and T. Reddy, "Port
Control Protocol (PCP) Authentication Mechanism", draft-
ietf-pcp-authentication-09 (work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives]
Reddy, T., Patil, P., Isomaki, M., and D. Wing,
"Optimizing NAT and Firewall Keepalives Using Port Control
Protocol (PCP)", draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-06
(work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-proxy]
Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and S.
Cheshire, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function",
draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08 (work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-policy-model]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and C. Chase,
"Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider
Networks", draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-00 (work in
progress), September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-architecture]
Cam-Winget, N., Lorenzin, L., McDonald, I., and l.
loxx@cisco.com, "Secure Automation and Continuous
Monitoring (SACM) Architecture", draft-ietf-sacm-
architecture-05 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]
Birkholz, H., Lu, J., and N. Cam-Winget, "Secure
Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Terminology",
draft-ietf-sacm-terminology-09 (work in progress), March
2016.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-rsvp]
Beeram, V., Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Shah, H., Chen,
X., Jones, R., and B. Wen, "A YANG Data Model for Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP)", draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-06
(work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo]
Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V., Saad, T., Shah, H., and
O. Dios, "YANG Data Model for TE Topologies", draft-ietf-
teas-yang-te-topo-06 (work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.kini-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model]
Kini, S., Hares, S., Dunbar, L., Ghanwani, A., Krishnan,
R., Bogdanovic, D., and R. White, "Filter-Based RIB
Information Model", draft-kini-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model-03
(work in progress), February 2016.
[I-D.li-bess-l3vpn-yang]
Li, Z., Zhuang, S., Liu, X., Haas, J., Esale, S., and B.
Wen, "Yang Data Model for BGP/MPLS IP VPN", draft-li-bess-
l3vpn-yang-00 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.pkd-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j.
jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path
Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)",
draft-pkd-pce-pcep-yang-06 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang]
Raza, K., Asati, R., Liu, X., Esale, S., Chen, X., and H.
Shah, "YANG Data Model for MPLS LDP and mLDP", draft-raza-
mpls-ldp-mldp-yang-04 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.saad-mpls-static-yang]
Saad, T., Raza, K., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V., Shah,
H., Bryskin, I., Chen, X., Jones, R., and B. Wen, "A YANG
Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs", draft-saad-mpls-static-
yang-03 (work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.shah-bess-l2vpn-yang]
Shah, H., Brissette, P., Rahman, R., Raza, K., Li, Z.,
Zhuang, S., Wang, H., Chen, I., Ahmed, S., Bocci, M.,
Hardwick, J., Esale, S., Tiruveedhula, K.,
tsingh@juniper.net, t., Hussain, I., Wen, B., Walker, J.,
Delregno, N., Jalil, L., and M. Joecylyn, "YANG Data Model
for MPLS-based L2VPN", draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang-01 (work
in progress), March 2016.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[I-D.zhang-ccamp-transport-ctrlnorth-yang]
Zhang, X., Jing, R., Jian, W., Ryoo, J., Xu, Y., and D.
King, "YANG Models for the Northbound Interface of a
Transport Network Controller: Requirements, Functions, and
a List of YANG Models", draft-zhang-ccamp-transport-
ctrlnorth-yang-00 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg]
Zheng, L., Aldrin, S., Zheng, G., Mirsky, G., and R.
Rahman, "Yang Data Model for LSP-PING", draft-zheng-mpls-
lsp-ping-yang-cfg-04 (work in progress), October 2016.
[RFC2748] Durham, D., Ed., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzog, S., Rajan,
R., and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
Protocol", RFC 2748, DOI 10.17487/RFC2748, January 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2748>.
[RFC2940] Smith, A., Partain, D., and J. Seligson, "Definitions of
Managed Objects for Common Open Policy Service (COPS)
Protocol Clients", RFC 2940, DOI 10.17487/RFC2940, October
2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2940>.
[RFC3084] Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S., McCloghrie,
K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar, R., and A.
Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)",
RFC 3084, DOI 10.17487/RFC3084, March 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3084>.
[RFC3303] Srisuresh, P., Kuthan, J., Rosenberg, J., Molitor, A., and
A. Rayhan, "Middlebox communication architecture and
framework", RFC 3303, DOI 10.17487/RFC3303, August 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3303>.
[RFC3304] Swale, R., Mart, P., Sijben, P., Brim, S., and M. Shore,
"Middlebox Communications (midcom) Protocol Requirements",
RFC 3304, DOI 10.17487/RFC3304, August 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3304>.
[RFC3483] Rawlins, D., Kulkarni, A., Bokaemper, M., and K. Chan,
"Framework for Policy Usage Feedback for Common Open
Policy Service with Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)",
RFC 3483, DOI 10.17487/RFC3483, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3483>.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3484, February 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3484>.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.
[RFC4080] Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework",
RFC 4080, DOI 10.17487/RFC4080, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4080>.
[RFC4261] Walker, J. and A. Kulkarni, Ed., "Common Open Policy
Service (COPS) Over Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
RFC 4261, DOI 10.17487/RFC4261, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4261>.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC5189] Stiemerling, M., Quittek, J., and T. Taylor, "Middlebox
Communication (MIDCOM) Protocol Semantics", RFC 5189,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5189, March 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5189>.
[RFC5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
Notifications", RFC 5277, DOI 10.17487/RFC5277, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5277>.
[RFC5539] Badra, M., "NETCONF over Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
RFC 5539, DOI 10.17487/RFC5539, May 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5539>.
[RFC5973] Stiemerling, M., Tschofenig, H., Aoun, C., and E. Davies,
"NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)",
RFC 5973, DOI 10.17487/RFC5973, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5973>.
[RFC6022] Scott, M. and M. Bjorklund, "YANG Module for NETCONF
Monitoring", RFC 6022, DOI 10.17487/RFC6022, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6022>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6243] Bierman, A. and B. Lengyel, "With-defaults Capability for
NETCONF", RFC 6243, DOI 10.17487/RFC6243, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6243>.
[RFC6436] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., and S. Jiang, "Rationale for
Update to the IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6436,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6436, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6436>.
[RFC6470] Bierman, A., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
Base Notifications", RFC 6470, DOI 10.17487/RFC6470,
February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6470>.
[RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.
[RFC6639] King, D., Ed. and M. Venkatesan, Ed., "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-Based Management
Overview", RFC 6639, DOI 10.17487/RFC6639, June 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6639>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>.
[RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for
System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7317>.
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Gap analysis March 2017
Authors' Addresses
Susan Hares
Huawei
7453 Hickory Hill
Saline, MI 48176
USA
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Bob Moskowitz
Huawei
Oak Park, MI 48237
Email: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com
Dacheng Zhang
Beijing
China
Email: dacheng.zdc@aliabab-inc.com
Hares, et al. Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 48]
