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

Versions: 00

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]


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