* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Lisp Status Pages

Locator/ID Separation Protocol (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Martin Vigoureux | 2009-Apr-28 —  

IETF-104 lisp minutes

Session 2019-03-29 0900-1030: Athens/Barcelona - Audio stream - lisp chatroom


minutes-104-lisp-00 minutes

          LISP WG Minutes
          Session 1/1 (90 Minutes)
          Friday, March 29, 2019
          9:00 - 10:30, Morning Session I, 90 Minutes
          Room: Athens/Barcelona
          - Status reports for WG drafts
                  5 Minutes       (Cumulative Time: 5 Minutes)
          Luigi: gave an update on the wg documents.
          The documents are still in progress due to reviews.
          The bis documents has thorough security reviews and lisp sec document
          is put on wg last call to have all documents regarding security reviewed
          Hopefully there will be progress and all the problems have all been
          solve and it made the document better.
          o WG Items
          - Update on 6830bis/6833bis documents
            20 Minutes (Cumulative Time: 25 Minutes)
            Albert Cabellos
          Albert presented:
          List of DISCUSS issues
          1. Incremental deployment of LISP-SEC and downgrade attacks
          2. Security of the gleaning mechanism: Traffic redirection of off-path
          3. Security of the LSB mechanism: Spoofing attacks
          4. Security of the Echo-Nonce mechanism: Nonce is too short to prevent
          off-path attackers
          5. Security of Map-Versioning: Gagging updates
          6. Anti-Replay protection of Map-Register
          7. Long-lived keys to authenticate Map-Register
          8. Map-Request/Reply anti-replay protection
          - Addition of a new e-bit
          - 2,3,4,5 restricting usage of Gleaning, LSB, Echo-nonce and map
          versioning when communicating over the internet. Only for use in a trusted
          environment and the deployer should be aware of the issues associated
          with this.
          - 6. start nonce with a random number and incrementing
          - 7. Usage of a derived_key : definition of the key-derivation Function
          2,3,4,5: point
          Luigi: Updates need – do not use it in an untrusted environment and
          the deployer need to be aware of the risks related to this mechanism
          Albert: The document will be update to include those
          6. Start nonce …
          Dino: It was suggested that when you start, the nonce doesn't start at
          0 but with random nonce.
          7. Long lived Keys
          Dino: What we haven't talked about is how do we make this interoperate
          with the existing stuff. We  should do that offline.
          Fabio: The way to make it interoperable with existing implementation
          is that today we define the algorithm ID that is there in the packet
          and the algorithm ID today is specifying only the HMac function that
          we use in the map register. In the map register message, there is the
          authentication data and the algorithm ID that you should use.
          We can define a new algorithm IDs that are say specifying not only the
          HMAC function but also the KDF function. The ETR will have to do not only
          the HMAC computation but before that it will have to do the key derivation
          function and this is extensible because we can define future algorithms.
          Dino: Can we do that a high order bit because if we set the higher order
          bit and we should say let's use KDF for all the existing hashes that
          are identified.  If the high order bit is zero it works like today. If
          the higher order bit is set then that means you have sha-256 with KDF
          Fabio: Yeah. I didn't think about that …it's a once in a time …
          Dino: rather than having to X values you just set the higher a bit and
          then any new HVAC you add later can run in a non KDF mode and KVA,
          Fabio:  Also don't want to burn two entries in there for things that in
          the future will not use ,
          We define 1 2 extra decimal but yeah it might be a small section
          Albert: relaxes requirements on nonce that is just used once.
          Luigi: Just for clarification to understand this, you throw away the pair
          but you can keep the nonce value. Is just the association you throw away.
          Albert:  You throw away everything. If you need to send a new map request
          then you will generate on your nonce and a new OTK.
          Fabio:I think what it is providing is a reply protection is the fact
          that the one time key is used one time. So, I generated one time key
          which is a big number (128 bit) then I'll do the map request for a
          exchanged replies come back. I check the integrity protection and then
          I discard the one time key. The nonce is now providing only an index.
          When I receive the map reply back, I can basically look up which one-time
          key I had used to protect that  key then nonce (64-bit) still has to be
          randomly generated because you don't want to use the same nonce because
          otherwise you will point to the same one time key.
          The property of anti-replay is not in the nonce but in the one-time
          key. Let's make a difference because otherwise the nonce would have had
          to be much bigger.  In conversation with Ben, if LISP-sec is not enabled
          the nonce provide a limited anti- reply protection.
          Dino:  I just wanted to address Luigi's question so the nonce otk
          pair in both the implementations of lists I've done it's also used as
          a data structure first rate limiting map request in lieu of the map
          reply coming back you want a rate limit so what happens is if you send
          a map request and you don't get a map reply you're gonna at some point
          later send another map request you send it with the same nonce with a
          different otk or you can be a new to tuple pair so you have to consider
          those things too because the rate limiting is really important right
          Fabio: I think there is text that is saying that you know rate limiting
          is important yeah
          Albert: We now have exponential backoff in order the rate limit for
          the retransmissions.
           Fabio:  what this thing does is-  if the attacker is sending you map
           replies  with a nonce that you have sent you will still look up your
           OTK  and also there is still the possibility of a ..
          Dino: On the other hand, the attacker could just be the man in the middle
          and just dropping the map-request causing you to retransmit to see if
          you're using the same one-time key. One time is a relative term right,
          is it one time for this destination query or is it for each individual
          map request?  It should be the latter.
           Fabio:  One time is one time.
          Luigi: Crystal clear
          Albert – gave a quick update on the yang model…
          - LISP YANG Model - draft-ietf-lisp-yang-11
            10 Minutes (Cumulative Time: 35 Minutes)
            Alberto Rodriguez Natal
          Alberto : Request WGLC and process for yang doctor review.
          Luigi: Let me do it and then we go for WGLC. I mean if he (Yang doctor)
          gives a green light it's it's great.
          Dino: so the this current yang model has features that corresponds to
          the proposed standard documents nothing more or less. Is that right? I
          mean there's existing working group documents that may define new types
          and so I'm just wondering to not lose it.
          Alberto: Our intent is to be perfectly aligned with this but if it is
          not and if you guys find something let us know/
           Dino: Let's be honest here, it has all this instance-id stuff in
           there and that's all defined in the VPN document which is a working
           group document that's not going to propose standard.  I don't want to
           complicate things but …
          Albert: I mean they're well but in other cities they have attributes he
          said any reference ID
          Dino: we don't talk about instance ID explicitly other than it's an
          extended Eid lookup in the mapping system.
          Joel: The mapping system PS documents do support the field and so it's
          okay to have them in the yang model because it's not like we're modeling
          a field that is not in the PS document. I think we're walking the line
          the right way.
          o Non WG Items
          - A decent LISP Mapping System (LISP_decent) -
            15 Minutes (Cumulative Time: 50 Minutes)
            Dino Farinacci
          Joel: It sounds like a couple of issues and they may be addressed
          on later slides but one if you want stability something gets strange
          when you suddenly add another server because he can't actually take
          responsibility for any addresses because anything that would hash to
          him now must have hashed to somebody else before so you there seems to
          be a problem with adding and subtracting things if you require that the
          function is permanently.
          Dino: we were able to get that to work well so stay tuned okay
          Joel: that's all that's fine the other one is there's a philosophical
          what determines who's allowed to participate in these things right is
          there a slide on that?
          Dino: I will address that.
          Joel: let's be clear prefix in this case means dotted suffix
          Dino: Yes
          Joel: It's a portion in the way we actually read DNS starting with a
          dot and it's coming there after is that way that's what you're saying?
          Dino: it's a DNS pre-fit and the reason we call it a DNS prefix is
          because it's a DNS name and then we will prefix the modulus index to it
          I'll get to it on the next slide.
          Joel: The type that's common is the DNS suffix.
          Dino :This is true.
          Joel: it's not too limited right
          Dino: it's a domain name right it's a domain zone
          Joel: Because I've run into people who think you can do other things in
          DNS that really don't work well.
          Dino: The statement is technically accurate because the map server set
          is a prefix to a DNS suffix so it is correct okay stay tuned. just hold
          on I know you're anxious Joel…
          Joel: does the hash include the prefix link? You show map register with
          hashes but the lookup doesn't know what the prefix length we had….
          Dino: we added something in the latest draft called a hash mask and
          hash mask are high order bits that are common between the lookup and
          the registration.
          Joel: Now some have a system-wide hash mask that could be advertised
          that everybody knows somehow and everybody uses for their registration
          hash. For their lookup hash and all registrations will have to be  longer
          Dino:  in cases where you're using 1 /128 and slew of  / 32 s like the
          XTR are co-located with the host and it's one in the same and you could
          use the entire length if you know that everybody's registering / 32s.
          Joel:  yeah yeah you can use a / 32 of ipv4 but if some people are using /
          24 you better not do the hash on.
          Dino: Absolutely. We're finding most of the list use cases now are being
          put very close to the host not even one hop away but either inside the
          container or the hypervisor so it's supporting a per host sort of thing
          because people want the mobility and therefore well you know
          Joel: You're using it for mobility I get that but that’s not the only
          use case we are claiming it's applicable.
          Dino:  absolutely that's why we have the hash mask
          Joel: Okay
          Joel: so the collorary is that if you lose thus though all of these
          servers which are taking care of a particular modulus nobody can register
          for anything that hashes to that and nobody can look up anything to have
          that hashes to that.
          Dino:  I'm just like in today's mapping system too if all map servers
          are if all map servers are down today the map requests go through DDT
          they come down to those they black hole.
          Joel:  Currently this is there's a relationship between the map server
          providers and the customers who are making use of them there's somebody
          to ask
          Dino: Yes
          Joel: In this system there is a much looser relationship yeah that's true
          and that's not a fatal flaw I'm not saying that we need to be aware of
          what the limitations are.
          Dino: yeah you know in the DDT model was great because we understood
          bgp peering and how agreements are between different organizations and
          but that still complicates things now these things could be run loosely
          coupled but you have to you know you as a mapping service provider
          have to know that sorry that's not my hash index you have to go to my
          competitor to figure out the problem.
          Luigi: I have a couple of clarification questions I mean don't you have
          here a huge service discovery problem at the beginning if you have to
          know to whom you can talk to?
          Dino: No,  the whole point is you can figure the suffix and once register
          you once you want to send a register you hash it and that construction
          of the DNS name is allowing you to do that resource discovery.
          Luigi: Yes that this leads me to the second question you started the
          motivation telling if Katerina comes and wipes out every connection to
          XTRs. Magically the DNS is still working. You have a dependency.
          Dino: You run a local DNS in that case…
          Luigi: I don't have access to the mapping say that anymore any of it do
          you rely on on another infrastructure and if you lose both.
          Dino: You're relying on a protocol not a global infrastructure today when
          you bring up containers a container system that's completely isolated
          you can use DNS names because it implements its own version of DNS.
          Luigi:  right it's only talking about the devices not containers
          Dino: I'm talking about the same thing - same doesn't matter
          Albert: Go to slide number 12 so I understand better the how this
          work. Okay so what you do is so when you come from app requests your
          hash and then out of the hash you know the name the DNS name over which
          to look up.  Then you have the IP of the map server to query right? So
          the so you are trusting the DNS you are basically are trusting the DNS
          for authentication?
          Dino: Right you're using another level of indirection by using the DNS
          naming system to give you these a records which are IP addresses of
          map servers.
          Albert: Okay
          Dino: These could be host entries and they can be statically configured
          in your configuration but if they're statically configured then you
          don't have that that dynamic resource discovery thing
          Colin: Just to add a point to that - I mean part of the infrastructural
          design of this is actually to use some forms of distributed letters so
          the domain name distributed ledger or kind of a more shared cryptographic
          database where the trust of it comes by the resource input required to
          create it so you can do is key value lookups as far as DNS lookups or
          anything associated with that in that ledger it's also that it can be
          self-contained so the ledger can also help maintain those trustable I
          guess aspects but you know the mathematics and resource in.
          Joel: either either we need to say that or we need to not be dependent
          on it in the draft I mean yeah of course not well you can make it work
          with a ledger we've we've done this before of we can make it work with
          this or that or the other thing not criticizing you I'm not objecting
          to use a ledger but we need to be clear in the draft yeah about what
          we're requiring Dino didn't say one word in his presentation about a
          distributed look
          Colin: I agree on this this specific draft was more so getting the
          infrastructural components of how the distributed Mapping system work
          all these other little intricacies as far as like DNS or a blotch and
          everything else are kind of I guess secondary to that but if we I guess
          we could maybe do some modifications so it includes some distributed
          ledger in there
          Joel: if you want to I mean I actually would prefer that we keep our
          technology separate and didn't have a components but that's a personal
          prejudice not a chairs preference
          Dino: yeah yeah so yeah you want to keep these things decoupled but if
          they can provide value to each other that's good but we have to also be
          concerned about circular dependencies
          - Distributed Geo-Spatial LISP Blackboard for Automotive -
            15 Minutes (Cumulative Time: 65 Minutes)
            Sharon Barkai
          Joel: before you go on I just want to make sure I've understood what
          you just said because if I'm seeing something probably other people
          are wondering what this looks like not Lisp terms for the moment. You
          created a database indexed by an ID per tile and you're storing in the
          database the reports from every car that has a meaningful report about
          this tile presumably with some currency so you don't store relevant
          data. Then anybody who's interested in this set of tiles subscribes to
          it so presumably as the car moves forward it subscribes to the set of
          tiles that correspond to in front of it in the road you're using the list
          mechanisms as the mechanism for registering that you have information
          putting information in subscribe the list subscribed mechanism is a way
          of getting the information out of this database it's not a paraphrase oh
          Sharon:  the mapping system is used so I can talk to the right tile
          because this is very geospatial…
          Joel: Conceptually, it's not really a server per tile but that's
          conceptually a server per tile so when you do the EID lookup you get
          the name the address of the server which is responsible for that data
          or the database key.
          Sharon: Exactly
          Joel: Does not matter what your granularity of server is the Eid lookup
          gives me who I should talk to.
          ???: who does the look up of the EID? GPS is not really precise so
          normally how do I know in the same pitch tile and located this is about
          three on relation between our antennas whatever. Then the description
          of the identifer of a tile is it's like mapping. Is it like an index in
          a database? so how do we get?
          Sharon:  That's the good question so in order to publish an annotation,
          I have to be 1 meter accurate but GPS is not. So but through machine
          vision which can be used for localization to better snap to set and give
          me the 1 meter. So to publish I need very good technology.  To subscribe,
          that's not the case I can be just a normal navigation app and when I
          go into a cell I need to get a dump of the next 20 seconds.  So I need
          to get a heads up and then I can locate myself but then what were the
          hazard is on the map. I will let the navigation or whatever correct the
          GPS as best it can but the hazard position on the map is correct .
          Joel: well so that would seem to have the risk that if my if I'm the
          driver who's you using the data if I'm on the service road for the
          highway and the highway is congested. I may get the report that there
          is congestion in front of me when there isn't now if it's only viewed
          as informative that's probably not fatal but if I get told it's clear
          in front of me because it thinks I'm on the side road when I'm actually
          on the highway that could be a serious problem because I won't react
          in advance.
          Sharon:  The goal of the blackboard okay is to communicate where is
          the congestion? \The responsibility of the client is to use the best
          ???: we always had the problem of predicting free roaming so predicting
          where I'm heading for so it's there some idealist if I have all their
          hexagons and I know I'm going on the street.  I may be like me I'm from
          Germany I'm going 280 kilometers per hours so it's their way to pre-roam
          that I can already encapsulate to the next four seconds.
          Sharon:  So your client is supposed to prefetch your next 20 seconds. so
          in a in town it's probably the next block I'm gonna turn who is crossing
          the road which I cannot see well because it's raining things like that.
          It is up to you to prefetch the cells that you're going to get into
          ???: it's pretty cool okay
          Padma: I just had one question so do you have some kind of reputation
          because if you have multiple cars or actually giving different
          Sharon: Absolutely. You publish and you correct what you see because of
          your in-car AI then when you publish your sum up and correct different
          annotations from different car it.
          Joel: strikes me I probably contributed to this we're diving into a lot
          of details navigation systems information collection systems which are
          all related to either the underlying database or to the application on
          the car navigating car I think we because we're good on what we wanted
          to give some other people time we should focus on it this is being used
          for this it's really tempting we're all engineers we want to go refine
          all the rest of it and Sharon would appreciate the feedback but we have
          a focus here.
          Sri Gundavalli:  I think it's a great work thanks for that. So let us
          take the case of a pedestrian walking down the street how exactly would
          that be used? How do I subscribe to that event.
          Sharon – simple dashcam and …of which are in their future who else
          this car is may also subscribe reflect yellow so maybe one more really
          cool …
          Sri: How does it you know? We're trying or does the same thing using
          Date Safety Message data so how does that compare this actually I'm
          just curious?
          Sharon: What we did is we took three standards okay h3 Liz and BDD which
          Berkeley deep drive guys…
          Luigi: I'm sorry to interrupt you. You take it offline okay. Colin,
          you have a clarification ?
          Colin: Quick question, yeah I was just going with the question if you
          want to do a server for granular cell or you know I mean as we were
          discussing earlier but I was wondering what the opposition having it
          be kind of more at localized mesh network be because you saw latency
          issues and you have the mobility issues solved with natural with Lisp
          so there's any opposition of that.
          Sharon : Local real mesh is not feasible because doesn't turn around
          corner. So you need anyway the tower. So it's anyway indirection.
          Colin: okay
          - Overflow Time/ Discussion
            25 Minutes (Cumulative Time: 90 Minutes)
          LISP Anonymity -  draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-06  10 Minutes
          Padma Pillay-Esnault
          Padma : in version 5 and the latest change we made is a very small change
          just for a clarification.
          Request for WGLC – Pretty stable.
          Fabio: I want to make a comment on the last call and please very friendly
          I mean many of us have been incredibly busy in addressing the RFC Bis
          review process now the SEC is being added and really that is sucking
          out all of the air from the room. I mean I honestly didn't have time to
          do the proper review of this document and I will not have time for the
          next three months. I suspect… So my suggestion is really can we wait
          one cycle so that you know we can focus all the energy of the group into
          you know trying to push this thing through and then going forward. Let
          me add one more thing so one nice effect of this is pain will be going
          through is that now there are at least a couple of guys in the second
          year Ben and Eric that are knowledgeable of LISP. So I think this in
          time will come back because they now understand well LISP protocol and
          they have clearly a very security ever strong security background so I
          think that if we take a little more time we we can you know focus more
          energy on this one.
          Joel: Frankly I would not have Deborah to handle anything that was not
          necessary for getting us to PS until we have finished with the iesg on
          the PS ones because….
          Padma: So I hear you guys and actually I want to say thanks for bulldozing
          the way for us later but we actually were going to ask for last call in
          Bangkok on this document. I held it one cycle by myself so this is the
          second cycle we're holding it. So I want to get this priority when you
          come back though that would be the only thing I would ask.
          Fabio: I know I know
          Padma : And for Predictive routing as well.
          Fabio: I understand we have been in that situation for a few cycles.
          Luigi: I would suggest we proceeded in this way so we wait for the this
          document and Lisp sec to go through and then we start to move forward
          the other documents. It  doesn't mean we have to wait until Montreal
          Padma: Yeah
          Luigi: hopefully up at the same time if we hold on a little bit it means
          as well documents like the Yang model we will hold on as well we can
          work on the Yang Doctor. We will ask,  it depends on the energy of the
          working group. I don't want to burden anybody but just the we agree on
          the how to move forward as a working group.
          Fabio: So if there is one lesson we have learned from all of these is
          that all the proper review we will not be able to do now within the
          working group, will come back with an exponential factor.
          Padma: Honestly the reason why I was kind of I added it last minute
          it's just I don't want to lose a second cycle without actually doing an
          update. I think it's important that we do the update so that you guys
          know that these are documents are waiting in the queue.
          Dino: Fabio there's no protocol changes to this at all and basically
          a host today can choose any idea wants to and the xtr learns about it
          the xtr has no idea if it's a random number that's being generated an
          allocated address from iana or the registries or whatever so i mean it
          does specify that this EID could be a crypto EID, a hash of a public key
          and that stuff's that more complicated stuff is put in another document
          that has runs its own course but this is just simply saying that a host
          could use any Eid at once and change it as much as it wants all the LISP
          machinery doesn't know this is going on it's just a configuration sort
          of thing so it's a really trivial to review right. Now the security area
          will probably say is frequently changing Eid secured enough or do they
          need to be you know but those are my work in there correction
          Luigi: We have two minutes what I propose what if you want to gain time
          what I propose is what if we ask for a security review right away of
          the document so that we are sure that once we go over the last call we
          don't have any issue afterwards so life is like the Yang model we try
          to gain time before we go for the last.
          Dino: It won't work because it will be dependent on the ID mobility
          draft in the ECDSA.
          Luigi: What you are saying we have still to wait anyway because there is
          an interdependence between documents. Yeah that's what you just said yes ?
          Dino: I am trying to tell you what I mean I know I don't I'm trying to
          anticipate with the sector guys with it would say and if they just think
          that ephemeral addresses and changing things frequently is sufficient
          for these class of applications then there is no dependency on those
          drafts. If they want something stronger than…
          Luigi: The most reasonable way to move forward in my opinion because of
          these comments is we asked for a security review so that we're sure that
          once we move it to the year the is she we don't get stuck in in endless
          their discussion about a security  like we did with the bis documents
          Albert: I understand everyone's concerns and willing to move forward
          . The first thing is that don't assume what a security review is. You
          said it will be easy … we don't know..  honestly we get some experience
          Luigi : From experience …
          Padma:  I would say agree with you guys about waiting so let me do that
          Albert: When we have a conversation with them
          LuigiL I have also pressures from is also the working group at this
          point let us not give them more reason to
          Luigi: About the these last three minutes what I gather is we will
          move the document further forward in the sense that I will ask for that
          security review that we will not get stuck afterwards. At the same time
          we don't go for WGLC right away.
          Fabio: By security review, you mean involving something someone from the
          secdir. Now these guys have full.  Their basket is full of LISP requests,
          we don't want to add to that buffer I mean honestly please
          Luigi: It is not up to me to deal with the agenda of the SEC dir.
          Deborah:  I mean actually you're not gonna ask Benjamin
          Luigi:  no no no no it's for early Directorate review
          Deborah: As we all know that's no guarantee we can find it it's good
          and yeah it shows that you're interested to get their feedback.
          Luigi:  We don't have to be forcibly and guys doesn't mean we go to
          Ben. Little bit I think a little bit and wouldn't be a bad idea if we
          give time to other people to get accustomed it with LISP so that they
          can review the security part. I mean we cannot rely only on Ben and Eric
          otherwise we will be always stuck under on the pipeline of these two guys.
          Fabio: Has this been presented to security? It may me help involving
          people from outside this community.
          Luigi: exactly and not only on this document
          Erik Nordmark: I wrote a draft called privacy issues in ID locator system
          a year ago I don't see it cited in this document it might be useful…
          LISP Uberlay - draft-moreno-lisp-uberlay-01 10 Minutes
          Alberto Rodriguez Natal
          Not enough time…

Generated from PyHt script /wg/lisp/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -