[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-irtf-panrg-questions

Path Aware Networking RG                                     B. Trammell
Internet-Draft                                                ETH Zurich
Intended status: Informational                         December 07, 2017
Expires: June 10, 2018

                Open Questions in Path Aware Networking


   This document poses open questions in path-aware networking, as a
   background for framing discussions in the Path Aware Networking
   proposed Research Group (PANRG).  These are split into making
   properties of Internet paths available to endpoints, and allowing
   endpoints to select paths through the Internet for their traffic.

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 June 10, 2018.

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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Trammell                  Expires June 10, 2018                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                PAN questions                December 2017

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction to Path-Aware Networking . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  A Vocabulary of Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Discovery, Distribution, and Trustworthiness of Path
           Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  Supporting Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  Interfaces for Path Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.5.  Implications of Path Awareness for the Data Plane . . . .   4
     2.6.  What is an Endpoint?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.7.  Operating a Path Aware Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.8.  Deploying a Path Aware Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction to Path-Aware Networking

   In the current Internet architecture, the network layer provides an
   unverifiable, best-effort service: an application can assume that a
   packet with a given destination address will eventually be forwarded
   toward that destination, but little else.  A transport layer protocol
   such as TCP can provide reliability over this best-effort service,
   and a protocol above the network layer such as IPsec AH [RFC4302] or
   TLS [RFC5246] can authenticate the remote endpoint.  However, no
   explicit information about the path is available, and assumptions
   about that path sometimes do not hold, sometimes with serious impacts
   on the application, as in the case with BGP hijacking attacks.

   By contrast, in a path-aware networking architecture, endpoints have
   the ability to select or influence the path through the network used
   by any given packet, and the network layer explicitly exposes
   information about the path or paths available between two endpoints
   to those endpoints so that they can make this selection.  Path
   control at the packet level enables new transport protocols that can
   leverage multipath connectivity across maximally-disjoing paths
   through the Internet, even over a single interface.  It also provides
   transparency and control for applications and end-users to specify
   constraints on the paths its traffic should traverse, for instance to
   confound pervasive passive surveillance in the network core.

Trammell                  Expires June 10, 2018                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                PAN questions                December 2017

2.  Questions

   Realizing path-aware networking requires answers to a set of open
   research questions.  This document poses these questions, as a
   starting point for discussions about how to realize path awareness in
   the Internet, and to direct future research efforts within the Path
   Aware Networking Research Group.

2.1.  A Vocabulary of Path Properties

   In order for information about paths to be exposed to the endpoints,
   and for those endpoints to be able to use that information, it is
   necessary to define a common vocabulary for path properties.  The
   elements of this vocabulary could include relatively static
   properties, such as the presence of a given node on the path; as well
   as relatively dynamic properties, such as the current values of
   metrics such as loss and latency.

   This vocabulary must be defined carefully, as its design will have
   impacts on the expressiveness of a given path-aware internetworking
   architecture.  This expressiveness also exhibits tradeoffs.  For
   example, a system that exposes node-level information for the
   topology through each network would maximize information about the
   individual components of the path at the endpoints at the expense of
   making internal network topology universally public, which may be in
   conflict with the business goals of each network's operator.

   The first question is therefore: how are path properties defined and

2.2.  Discovery, Distribution, and Trustworthiness of Path Properties

   Once endpoints and networks have a shared vocabulary for expressing
   path properties, the network must have some method for distributing
   those path properties to the endpoint.  Regardless of how path
   property information is distributed to the endpoints, the endpoints
   require a method to authenticate the properties - to determine that
   they originated from and pertain to the path that they purport to.
   The end goal of authentication is not necessarily to establish that a
   given property is actually bound to a given path, but to ensure that
   the information is trustworthy, that actions taken based on it will
   have the predicted result.

   Choices in an distribution and authentication methods will have
   impacts on the scalability of a path-aware architecture.  Possible
   dimensions in the space of distribution methods include in-band
   versus out-of-band, push versus pull versus publish-subscribe, and so
   on.  There are temporal issues with path property dissemination as

Trammell                  Expires June 10, 2018                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                PAN questions                December 2017

   well, especially with dynamic properties, since the measurement or
   elicitation of dynamic properties may be outdated by the time that
   information is available at the endpoints, and interactions between
   the measurement and dissemination delay may exhibit pathological
   behavior for unlucky points in the parameter space.

   The second question: how do endpoints get access to trustworthy path

2.3.  Supporting Path Selection

   Access to trustworthy path properties is only half of the challenge
   in establishing a path-aware architecture.  Endpoints must be able to
   use this information in order to select paths for traffic they send.
   As with path property distribution, choices made in path selection
   methods will also have an impact on the scalability and
   expressiveness of a path-aware architecture, and dimensions included
   in-band versus out-of-band, as well.  Paths may also be selected on
   multiple levels of granularity - per packet, per flow, per aggregate
   - and this choice also has impacts on the scalabilty/expressiveness

   The third question: how can endpoints select paths to use for traffic
   in a way that can be trusted by the network?

2.4.  Interfaces for Path Awareness

   In order for applications to make effective use of a path-aware
   networking architecture, the interfaces presented by the network and
   transport layers must also expose path properties to the application
   in a useful way, and provide a useful selection for path selection.
   Path selection must be possible based not only on the preferences and
   policies of the application developer, but of end-users as well.

   The fourth question: how can interfaces to the transport and
   application layers support the use of path awareness?

2.5.  Implications of Path Awareness for the Data Plane

   In the current Internet, the basic assumption that at a given time t
   all traffic for a given flow will traverse a single path, for some
   definition of path, generally holds.  In a path aware network, this
   assumption no longer holds.  The failure of this assumption has
   implications for the design of protocols above a path-aware network

   For example, one advantage of multipath communication is that a given
   end-to-end flow can be "sprayed" along multiple paths in order to

Trammell                  Expires June 10, 2018                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                PAN questions                December 2017

   confound attempts to collect data or metadata from those flows for
   pervasive surveillance purposes [RFC7624].  However, the benefits of
   this approach are reduced if the upper-layer protocols use linkable
   identifiers on packets belonging to the same flow across different
   paths.  Clients may mitigate linkability by opting to not re-use
   cleartext connection identifiers, such as TLS session IDs or tickets,
   on separate paths.  The privacy-conscious strategies required for
   effective privacy in a path-aware Internet are only possible if
   higher-layer protocols such as TLS permit clients to obtain
   unlinkable identifiers.

   The fifth question: how should transport-layer and higher layer
   protocols be redesigned to work most effectively over a path-aware
   networking layer?

2.6.  What is an Endpoint?

   The vision of path-aware networking articulated so far makes an
   assumption that path properties will be disseminated to endpoints on
   which applications are running (terminals with user agents, servers,
   and so on).  However, incremental deployment may require that a path-
   aware network "core" be used to interconnect islands of legacy
   protocol networks.  In these cases, it is the gateways, not the
   application endpoints, that receive path properties and make path
   selections for that traffic.  The interfaces provided this gateway
   are necessarily different than those a path-aware networking layer
   provides to its transport and application layers, and the path
   property information the gateway needs and makes available over those
   interfaces may also be different.

   The sixth question: how is path awareness (in terms of vocabulary and
   interfaces) different when applied to tunnel and overlay endpoints?

2.7.  Operating a Path Aware Network

   The network operations model in the current Internet architecture
   assumes that traffic flows are controlled by the decisions and
   policies made by network operators, as expressed in interdomain
   routing protocols.  In a path-aware network with effective path
   selection, however, this assumption no longer holds, as endpoints may
   react to path properties by selecting alternate paths.  Competing
   control inputs from path-aware endpoints and the interdomain routing
   control plane may lead to more difficult traffic engineering or
   nonconvergent routing, especially if the endpoints' and operators'
   idea of the "best" path for given traffic differs significantly.

Trammell                  Expires June 10, 2018                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                PAN questions                December 2017

   The seventh question: how can a path aware network in a path aware
   internetwork be effectively operated, given control inputs from the
   network administrator as well as from the endpoints?

2.8.  Deploying a Path Aware Network

   The vision presented in the introduction discusses path aware
   networking from the point of view of the benefits accruing at the
   endpoints, to designers of transport protocols and applications as
   well as to the end users of those applications.  However, this vision
   requires action not only at the endpoints but within the
   interconnected networks offering path aware connectivity.  While the
   specific actions required are a matter of the design and
   implementation of a specific realization of a path aware protocol
   stack, it is clear than any path aware architecture will require
   network operators to give up some control of their networks over to
   endpoint-driven control inputs.  The incentives for network operators
   and equipment vendors to do this must be made clear.

   The eighth question: how can the incentives of network operators and
   end-users be aligned to realize the vision of path aware networking?

3.  Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Adrian Perrig, Jean-Pierre Smith, Mirja Kuehlewind,
   Olivier Bonaventure, Martin Thomson, Shwetha Bhandari, and Chris
   Wood, for discussions leading to questions in this document.

   This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
   Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture
   for a Middleboxed Internet (MAMI), and by the Swiss State Secretariat
   for Education, Research, and Innovation under contract no. 15.0268.
   This support does not imply endorsement.

4.  References

4.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,

Trammell                  Expires June 10, 2018                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                PAN questions                December 2017

4.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7624]  Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
              Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
              "Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
              Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,

Author's Address

   Brian Trammell
   ETH Zurich
   Gloriastrasse 35
   8092 Zurich

   Email: ietf@trammell.ch

Trammell                  Expires June 10, 2018                 [Page 7]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/