[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                        D. von Hugo
Internet-Draft                                          Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Standards Track                             B. Sarikaya
Expires: November 15, 2019                           Denpel Informatique
                                                              L. Iannone
                                                       Telecom ParisTech
                                                             A. Petrescu
                                                               CEA, LIST
                                                                  K. Sun
                                                     Soongsil University
                                                              U. Fattore
                                                                     NEC
                                                            May 14, 2019


    Problem Statement for Secure End to End Privacy in IdLoc Systems
                       draft-xyz-pidloc-ps-00.txt

Abstract

   Efficient and service aware flexible end-to-end routing in future
   communication networks is achieved by routing protocol approaches
   making use of Identifier Locator separation systems.  Since these
   systems require a correlation between identifiers and location which
   might allow tracking and misusage of individuals' identities and
   locations such operation demands for highly secure measures to
   preserve privacy of users and devices.  This document tries to
   identify and describe typical use cases and derive thereof
   requirements to be fulfilled by privacy preserving Identifier-Locator
   split (PidLoc) approaches.

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 15, 2019.




von Hugo, et al.        Expires November 15, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Pidloc Problem Statement                May 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
   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Identifier Locator Separation Protocols . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Industrial IoT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  5G Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Cloud Use Case  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  Vehicular Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  PIdLoc Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Forthcoming future communication systems which are currently under
   specification by standardization organizations try to achieve higher
   resource efficiency and flexibility as compared to currently deployed
   and operated networks.  Independent of specific access technologies
   multiple applications shall be served with different levels of
   policy- driven mobility support and quality of service in terms of
   bandwidth, latency, error probability etc.  Current practice of IP
   address usage includes semantics as session identification as well as
   entity location and name resolution.  Many networking and information
   processing related topics as cloud computing, software defined
   networking, network function virtualization, logical network slicing,
   and convergence of multiple heterogeneous access and transport



von Hugo, et al.        Expires November 15, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Pidloc Problem Statement                May 2019


   technologies call for new approaches towards service specific and
   optimized packet routing.

   Promising proposals are Identifier Locator (Id-Loc) separation
   systems like Identifier Locator Addressing (ILA), Identifier-Locator
   Network Protocol (ILNP), Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), and
   others.

   Architectures and protocols for these approaches are already
   documented in detail and are under continuous evolution in different
   WGs.  This document on the other hand attempts to identify potential
   issues with respect to real-world deployment scenarios which may
   demand for light- weight implementations of Id-Loc systems.
   Especially the issues related to threads due to privacy violation of
   devices and their users as well as location detection and movement
   tracking may demand for specific countermeasures.

   To provide a problem statement this draft documents common aspects
   and differences of several Id-Loc approaches from a high-level
   perspective and describes a set of use cases resulting in identified
   requirements towards 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].

   Identifier: An identifier is information to unambiguously identify an
   entity or an entity group within a given scope.  An identifier is the
   equivalent of an End point identifier (EID) in The Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol (LISP).  It may be visible in communications.

   Locator: A locator is a routable network address.  It may be
   associated with an identifier and used for communication on the
   network layer according to identifier locator split principle.  A
   locator is the equivalent of a Routing Locator (RLOC) in LISP or an
   IP address in other cases.

3.  Identifier Locator Separation Protocols

   Identifier represents a communication end-point of an entity and may
   not be routable.  Locator also represents a communication end point,
   i.e. its routable network address and thus can change if the entity
   moves.  A database called a mapping system needs to be used for
   identifier to locator mapping.  Identifiers are mapped to locators
   for forwarding purposes.  Mapping system has to handle mobility by
   modifying identifier to locator mappings in the database.



von Hugo, et al.        Expires November 15, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Pidloc Problem Statement                May 2019


   To start the communication, a device needs to know the identifier of
   the destination and then relies on a process to lookup on a network
   identifier and return the locator(s).  Note that both identifier and
   locator can be carried in clear in packet headers.

   Usage of identifiers readily available for public access raises
   privacy issues.  For public entities, it may be desirable to have
   their fully qualified domain names or host names available for public
   lookups by the clients however such is not the case in general for
   the identifiers, e.g. for individuals roaming in a mobile network.

   ILNP

   Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [RFC6740] is a host- based
   approach enabling mobility using mechanisms that are only deployed in
   end-systems and do not require any router changes.  ...

   ILA

   Identifier-Locator Addressing (ILA) [I-D.herbert-intarea-ila] uses
   address transformation proposing to split an IPv6 address in 64-bit
   identifier (lower address bits) and locator (higher address bits)
   portions.  The locator part is determined dynamically from a mapping
   table that maintains associations between the location-independent
   identifiers and topologically significant locators.  ...

   LISP

   Locator/Id Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] is a network based
   approach using mapping and encapsulation of packets proposing a LISP
   architecture which provides a level of indirection for routing and
   addressing performed at specific ingress/egress routers at the LISP
   domain boundaries.  LISP control plane protocol [RFC6833] can also be
   applied to various other user plane protocols.  Both LISP user plane
   as control plane are under revision as [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], respectively. ...

4.  Use Cases

   The collection of use cases shall serve as starting point to derive
   requirements to future solutions providing privacy and security in
   generic Identifier Locator Split Approaches.

4.1.  Industrial IoT

   Sensors and other connected things in the industry are usually no
   personal items (e.g. wearables) potentially revealing an indiduals
   sensitive information but business assets which should be detected



von Hugo, et al.        Expires November 15, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Pidloc Problem Statement                May 2019


   only by authorised intra-company entities.  Since the huge amount of
   these things (massive IoT) as well as typical energy and bandwidth
   constraints of battery-powered devices may pose a challenge to
   traditional routing and security measures privacy enabled Id-Loc
   split approaches are proposed as a viable approach here,
   [I-D.nordmark-id-loc-privacy] ...

4.2.  5G Use Case

   Upcoming new truely universal communication via so-called 5G systems
   will demand for much more that (just) higher bandwidth and lower
   latency.  Integration of heterogeneous multiple access technologies
   (both wireless and wireleine) controlled by a common converged core
   network and the evolution to service-based flexile functionalities
   instead of hard-coded network functions calls for new protocols both
   on control and user (data) plane.  While Id-Loc approach would serve
   well here the challenge to provide a unique level of security and
   privacy even for a lightweight routing and forwarding mechanism -
   allowing for ease of deployment and migration from existing
   operational network architecture - remains to be solved.

4.3.  Cloud Use Case

   The cloud, i.e. a set of distributed data centers for processing and
   storage connected via highspeed transmission paths, is seen as
   logical location for content and also for virtualized network
   function instances and shall provide measures for easy re-location
   and migration of these instances deployed as e.g. containers or
   virtual machines.  Id-Loc split routing protocols are proposed for
   usage here while the topology of the cloud components and logical
   correlations shall be invisible from outside.  ...

4.4.  Vehicular Networks

   In vehicular networks use cases (e.g. for a future C-ITS, i.e.
   Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems) there are some problems
   related to privacy.  Cars are mandated to beacon CAM messages
   (cooperative awareness message - also denoted as basic service
   message, BSM) very frequently (more than 1 per second).  These
   messages contain identifiers such as MAC addresses.  They are unique
   and visible in the public oui.txt file.  They can be tracked.  But
   these are MAC addresses, not IP addresses.

   If, in the future, cars beacon Router Advertisements as well, then
   there is a risk in the src address of these RAs - the LL.  They are
   usually formed out of the MAC address, even though recent RFC7217
   [RFC7217] give suggestion of using a random ID in the IID (Interface
   Identifiers) (rather than the MAC address); the RFC stays silent



von Hugo, et al.        Expires November 15, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Pidloc Problem Statement                May 2019


   about the prefix length; since the RFC7217 method covers also the LL
   addresses, and requires them to be RFC4291-like (64bit length), that
   random ID is still of fixed length (64).  Longer than 64 IIDs may
   benefit privacy, since crypto attacks on them would be harder.

   A variable length IID in link-local addresses may help create a
   flexible identifier-locator split thus increasing privacy.

   In addition C-ITS shall also allow to improve vehicular network based
   services as e.g. predict traffic congestion along the route and
   propose a re-direction towards alternative routes, or predict network
   coverage along the foreseen path to adapt a critical service.  This
   on the other hand demands for knowledge of the actual route, i.e.
   tracking of the vehicle.  As was shown in [NYC_cab] even anonymizing
   sometimes does not prevent from privacy breaches.  ...

5.  PIdLoc Requirements

   TBD.

6.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.

7.  Security Considerations

8.  Acknowledgements

9.  References

9.1.  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.

   [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>.



von Hugo, et al.        Expires November 15, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Pidloc Problem Statement                May 2019


9.2.  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.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.





von Hugo, et al.        Expires November 15, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Pidloc Problem Statement                May 2019


Authors' Addresses

   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


   Luigi Iannone
   Telecom ParisTech

   Email: ggx@gigix.net


   Alex Petrescu
   CEA, LIST

   Email: alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com


   Kyoungjae Sun
   Soongsil University

   Email: gomjae@dcn.ssu.ac.kr


   Umberto Fattore
   NEC

   Email: Umberto.Fattore@neclab.eu












von Hugo, et al.        Expires November 15, 2019               [Page 8]


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