Internet DRAFT - draft-qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase
draft-qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase
Internet Engineering Task Force K. Wang
Internet-Draft X. Zhuang
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: September 7, 2015 March 6, 2015
Integrated Security with Access Network Use Case
draft-qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase-02
Abstract
In traditional telecommunication system, operators usually provide
general and limited security protection service for users during
access (e.g. AKA in 3G/4G network). Now, with the development of
network virtualization technology and data center, physical network
devices can be replaced by network function softwares which are
running on virtual machines and the network function can be flexible
and elastic. Operators can provide users with more security services.
So this interfaces between operator's network and users are highly
desired. These interfaces will be used to request/achieve (Virtual)
Network Security Functions from operator's network. This draft
describes use cases for using the interface in operator's network
environment.
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 August 31, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Wang &Zhuang &Qi Expires September 7, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Access Network Use Case February 2015
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use case summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Use case for Instantiation and Configuration of Security
Service Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Use case for Updating Security Service Function . . . . . . . 5
6. Use case for Collecting and Feedback of Status of Security
Service Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. The Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
This draft is a revised version of draft-qi-i2nsf-access-network-
usecase and refines the original use cases. In draft-qi-i2nsf-access-
network-usecase, an interface between UE and network was described
while this draft describes two interfaces.Users can use client to
achieve security service of operator via these interfaces. The user
can be an enterprise, an enterprise user, administrator of operator
and so on. The revisions details as below: 1.For original use case-
Interface about sending security configuration information from
network to UE: All examples have been deleted and network did not
send configuration information to UE via interface. Instead Users
will send security service requests to security controller to
configure NSF(s). 2.For original use case-Interface about optional
security function negotiation between Network and UE: All examples
have been deleted and there is no security function negotiation
between network and UE. Instead Users will send security service
request to security controller to configure NSF(s). 3.For original
Wang &Zhuang &Qi Expires September 7, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Access Network Use Case February 2015
use case-UE proposed security request to the network: The original
interactions between user and network will be more concrete. For
example, the original interaction between user and specific network
element will be revised into interaction between user's client and
security controller. The interaction between specific network element
and security function settings will be described in detail. 4.For
original section of Abstraction and The Benefits: Corresponding
modifications have been made to match revised use cases better.
2. Conventions used in this document
The section clarifies the intended meaning of specific terms used
within this document.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.
3. Use case summary
This draft describes use cases of users (e.g. enterprise user,
operator's administrator and so on) using operators' flexible
security services. For example, a user can request a security service
through a client (e.g. APP, BSS/OSS, OAM etc.).An operator's network
entity(e.g. gateway) can invoke (v)NSF(s) according to user's service
request. In order to make the description more clear, we call
operator's network entity as security controller. The interaction
between entities above(i.e. client, security controller, NSF) can be
showed as below:
+----------+
+-------+ | | +-------+
| | Interface 1 |Security | Interface 2 | NSF(s)|
|Client <--------------> <------------------> |
| | |Controller| | |
+-------+ | | +-------+
+----------+
Figure 1. Interaction between Entities
Interface 1 is used for receiving security requirements from client
and translating them into commands that NSF(s) can understand and
execute. Moreover, it is also responsible for giving feedback of
NSFs' security statistics to client.Interface 2 is used for
interacting with NSFs according to commands. Moreover, it is also
Wang &Zhuang &Qi Expires September 7, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Access Network Use Case February 2015
responsible for receiving the results of commands from NSFs.NSF
mentioned in this draft includes virtualized NSF and physical NSF.
4. Use case for Instantiation and Configuration of Security Service
Function
Client sends collected security requirements through interface 1 to
the security controller in operator's network which then translates
them into a security function or a set of security functions then the
corresponding NSFs are instantiated and configured through interface
2.For example, an enterprise user A is a tenant of operator data
center and wants to filter all TCP data packets flowing to A's
network. Such a requirement is sent from client to security
controller through interface 1. The security controller translates
the requirement into a firewall function and then instantiates a
firewall NSF through interface 2. The corresponding filter rule is
also configured onto this firewall NSF.
5. Use case for Updating Security Service Function
User can use client to update security service function, including
adding/deleting a security service function and updating
configurations at former security service function. For example,a
user who has instantiated a security service before wants to enable
an IDS service additionally, this requirement will be sent to
security controller through interface 1 and be translated and then
security controller instantiates and configures an IDS NSF through
interface 2. Another example is that if the user A mentioned in use
case 1 wants to filter all UDP packets besides TCP packets, client
sends this requirement to security controller through interface 1 and
then security controller configures translated requirement onto the
former firewall NSF.
6. Use case for Collecting and Feedback of Status of Security Service
Function
When users want to get the executing status of security service, they
can request the status statistics information of NSF(s) from client.
Security controller can collect NSFs' status statistics information
through interface 2 and give feedback to client through interface 1,
which is helpful for user analyzing or updating security
requirements. Users can collect status statistics information of
NSF(s) related to their security service and can also be authorized
to collect all NSFs' status statistics information for the analysis
of big data for network security like the overall security status of
the network in operator's data center.
7. The Benefits
Wang &Zhuang &Qi Expires September 7, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Access Network Use Case February 2015
There are numerous benefits by defining such interfaces. Operators
could provide more flexible and customized security services for
specific users and this would provide more efficient and secure
protection to each user.
8. IANA Considerations
TBD
9. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Authors' Addresses
Ke Wang
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumenxi Ave,Xicheng District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: wangkeyj@chinamobile.com
Xiaojun Zhuang
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xicheng District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: zhuangxiaojun@chinamobile.com
Minpeng Qi
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumenxi Ave,Xicheng District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: qiminpeng@chinamobile.com
Wang &Zhuang &Qi Expires September 7, 2015 [Page 5]
