Internet DRAFT - draft-xyz-pidloc-reqs
draft-xyz-pidloc-reqs
Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Standards Track D. von Hugo
Expires: November 28, 2019 Deutsche Telekom
B. Sarikaya
Denpel Informatique
May 27, 2019
Requirements to Secure End to End Privacy in IdLoc Systems
draft-xyz-pidloc-reqs-00.txt
Abstract
Use of Identifier Locator separation systems is proposed for various
use cases to allow for efficient and service aware flexible end-to-
end routing. A statement on the issue of privacy preservation of
both users and devices identity and location describes major
challenges identified for this problem. This document attempts to
derive requirements towards a potential solution space of approaches
to preserve privacy in Identifier-Locator split (PidLoc) protocols.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 28, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Iannone, et al. Expires November 28, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Requirements May 2019
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 and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Identifier Locator Separation Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. PId-Loc Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Limited Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.3. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.4. Resiliency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.5. ID to Locator Association Protection . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
[I-D.xyz-pidloc-ps] has identified and described typical use cases
for application of privacy preserving Identifier-Locator split
(PidLoc) approaches and derived thereof a problem statement
describing corresponding issues and challenges. Privacy in this
respect includes prevention of acquisition of personal information,
behavioral details, and location information by unauthorised parties.
This document tries to assess that set of issues and challenges to
come up with a set of requirements for approaches towards service
specific and optimized packet routing based on Id-Loc principle
providing privacy and security.
2. Conventions and 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 [RFC2119] and
[I-D.xyz-pidloc-ps].
Iannone, et al. Expires November 28, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Requirements May 2019
3. Identifier Locator Separation Protocols
This section summarizes the specifics and commonalities of existing
Identifier Locator (Id-Loc) Separation Protocols and highlights the
corresponding challenges and issues identified in
[I-D.xyz-pidloc-ps].
4. PId-Loc Requirements
This section lists requirements which emerge from the use case
analysis and will apply (beside the general requirements to fit with
privacy considerations for Internet Protocols as laid down in RFC
6973 [RFC6973] and partly also on design criteria for confidentiality
in the data plane of LISP described in RFC 8061 [RFC8061]) for the
solution space providing privacy and security in generic Identifier
Locator Split Approaches.
4.1. Limited Effort
The measures to ensure privacy to Id-Loc systems shall not require
additional infrastructure and external third party provided resources
to be used nor increase the overall effort such that network and
service performance is strongly degraded. Successful privacy
measures shall not impact availability.
4.2. Flexibility
Because Id-Loc approaches can be used in mobile environments,
flexibility in time and space should be provided. The same Id,
associated to a specific device, can move around and at different
times can have different privacy requirements, may be depending on
the specific connection or provider used. Still because of mobility,
a certain device can have different privacy requirements depending of
where it is.
4.3. Scalability
Because some of the ID-Loc proposals aim at being deployed in
datacenters, the methods to ensure privacy has to be able to function
at very large scale.
4.4. Resiliency
The measure shall not rely on a potential single point of failure nor
a single mechanism and allow for automatic rebooting or relying on
alternative solutions in case of compromise and attacks.
Iannone, et al. Expires November 28, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Requirements May 2019
4.5. ID to Locator Association Protection
The Id-Loc system may need to use measures for binding one or more
identifiers to one or more locators. This is usually achieved by a
mapping or lookup system (e.g. DNS) which has to be protected
against unauthorised access and may allow for different policy-based
chosen levels of security. Like any other software-based service,
the mapping system has to be protected against DDoS attacks and the
like. However, there are specific points to be tackled:
o Mapping System Access Control: Who can access the mapping system?
o Mapping Access Control: Someone authorized to access the mapping
system does not mean that is authorized to access the mapping of a
specific Identifier.
o Byzantines Attacks: What if someone is able to inject tempered
information to attack either the mapping system itself of a
specific identifier?
The above may be defined on various criteria, like for instance
administrative criteria "devices part of the same company", or
geographical criteria "only close by devices", or service-aware
"devices operating the same service".
5. IANA Considerations
TBD.
6. Security Considerations
7. Acknowledgements
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 (work in progress),
November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 (work in progress), February
2019.
Iannone, et al. Expires November 28, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Requirements May 2019
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.herbert-intarea-ila]
Herbert, T. and P. Lapukhov, "Identifier-locator
addressing for IPv6", draft-herbert-intarea-ila-01 (work
in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]
Touch, J. and M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet
Architecture", draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-09 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17
(work in progress), November 2018.
[I-D.nordmark-id-loc-privacy]
Nordmark, E., "Privacy issues in ID/locator separation
systems", draft-nordmark-id-loc-privacy-00 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[I-D.xyz-pidloc-ps]
Hugo, D., Sarikaya, B., Iannone, L., Petrescu, A., Kj, S.,
and U. Fattore, "Problem Statement for Secure End to End
Privacy in IdLoc Systems", draft-xyz-pidloc-ps-00 (work in
progress), May 2019.
[NYC_cab] Douriez, et al., M., "Anonymizing NYC Taxi Data: Does It
Matter?", Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Data Science and
Advanced Analytics (DSAA'16) , pp. 140-148, 2016.
[RFC6740] Atkinson, RJ. and SN. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6740, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6740>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
Iannone, et al. Expires November 28, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Requirements May 2019
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
Email: ggx@gigix.net
Dirk von Hugo
Deutsche Telekom
Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7
D-64295 Darmstadt
Germany
Email: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Behcet Sarikaya
Denpel Informatique
Email: sarikaya@ieee.org
Iannone, et al. Expires November 28, 2019 [Page 6]
