Network J. Bi Internet-Draft G. Yao Intended status: Standards Track Tsinghua Univ. Expires: January 5, 2015 July 4, 2014 Software Defined SAVI draft-bi-aponf-sdsavi-00 Abstract This document is about the APONF use case for SAVI. 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 January 5, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (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. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this Bi & Yao Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft APONF SAVI July 2014 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. APONF Use Case for SAVI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Element View Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Configuration Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. Binding and Filtering Generation Process . . . . . . . . 3 4. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction To validate the source address of local traffic can greatly improve the security and traceability of the network. The IETF Source Address Validation Improvements working group has standardized a number of finer-granularity source address validation solutions, i.e., FCFS-SAVI, DHCP-SAVI, SEND-SAVI. However, due to the considerations on simplify in implementation and deployment, the solutions only cover the basic scenarios. Whenever these solutions are enforced in scenarios with new source address usage related elements, for example, Mobile IP, these solutions may behavior improperly. In real deployment of SAVI solutions, the operators have to take such elements into account and evaluate whenever legitimate traffic will be filtered by the SAVI solutions. On the other hand, considering the emergence of new protocols related with source address usage and assignment, to design a SAVI solution for all the possible scenario is extremely complex, if possible. Ideally, a SAVI solution should have a look at the related elements in the network, and the decide the proper binding and filtering strategy. The APONF (Application-based Policy for Network Functions) work aims at providing the network management application-based policy protocol(s), mechanisms and models required by network management applications to easily, accurately, and efficiently select and use the available communication network capabilities through the use of network management policies. Based on APONF, a SAVI solution can effectively get the visibility of the related elements, and the traffic to manage. The document proposes a APONF use case for SAVI. Bi & Yao Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft APONF SAVI July 2014 2. Terminology The terminology used in the APONF problem statement draft [ID.karagiannis-aponf-problem-statement-00] applies also to this draft. 3. APONF Use Case for SAVI With APONF enabled, the SAVI solution is deployed as a network service application rather than processes running on each switch. This section discusses the possible implementation of SAVI with APONF. 3.1. Element View Collection From the interfaces provided by APONF, the SAVI solution at first collects the related elements. An incomplete list contains: the address assignment mechanisms and their priorities, the topologies, the roles of network devices(e.g., host, DHCP server/relay, switches), the address transition mechanisms, the supported local/ cross-network mobility mechanisms, the tunnel/encapsulation/ decapsulate configuration and mechanisms, the address authentication mechanisms, etc. 3.2. Configuration Generation Based on the collected view, the SAVI application tries to generate the required configurations. The protection perimeter and the port attribute can be automatically generated based on the topology and the roles of network devices. The related attachment points can be specially marked if the address from them are affected by transition/ tunnel mechanisms. 3.3. Binding and Filtering Generation Process The SAVI application can install filtering rules pro-actively or reactively. It can make use the interface to the router, DHCP server, the switches to set up bindings for address. Such bindings are used to handle the most common cases covered in existing SAVI solutions. The SAVI application gives an eye on the traffic to filter. It checks whether these traffic belonging to one of the possible exceptions, e.g., an address is generated by a transition mechanism but rather an address assignment mechanism. Such bindings can then be installed reactively. Bi & Yao Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft APONF SAVI July 2014 4. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Authors' Addresses Jun Bi Tsinghua University Network Research Center, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 China EMail: junbi@tsinghua.edu.cn Guang Yao Tsinghua University Network Research Center, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 China EMail: yaoguang@cernet.edu.cn Bi & Yao Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4]