A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking
draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael H. Behringer , Brian E. Carpenter , Toerless Eckert , Laurent Ciavaglia , Bing Liu | ||
| Last updated | 2015-06-11 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-anima-reference-model, RFC 8993 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-02
ANIMA M. Behringer, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Informational B. Carpenter
Expires: December 13, 2015 Univ. of Auckland
T. Eckert
Cisco
L. Ciavaglia
Alcatel Lucent
B. Liu
Huawei Technologies
June 11, 2015
A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking
draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-02
Abstract
This document describes a reference model for Autonomic Networking.
The goal is to define how the various elements in an autonomic
context work together, to describe their interfaces and relations.
While the document is written as generally as possible, the initial
solutions are limited to the chartered scope of the WG.
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 December 13, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
(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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Network View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Autonomic Network Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Unconstrained AN Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Constrained AN Nodes (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Signaling Between Autonomic Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Intent Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.7. The Autonomic Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security and Trust Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Public Key Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Domain Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. The MASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Sub-Domains (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5. Cross-Domain Functionality (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Autonomic Service Agents (ASA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. General Description of an ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Specific ASAs for the Enrolment Process . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.1. The Enrolment ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.2. The Enrolment Proxy ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.3. The Registrar ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Management and Programmability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. How an AN Network Is Managed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Intent (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Aggregated Reporting (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. Feedback Loops to NOC(*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.5. APIs (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.6. Data Model (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Coordination Between Autonomic Functions (*) . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. The Coordination Problem (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. A Coordination Functional Block (*) . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Hybrid Approach with Non-Autonomic Functions (*) . . . . . . 13
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
10.1. Threat Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The document "Autonomic Networking - Definitions and Design Goals"
[I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] explains the
fundamental concepts behind Autonomic Networking, and defines the
relevant terms in this space. In section 5 it describes a high level
reference model. This document defines this reference model with
more detail, to allow for functional and protocol specifications to
be developed in an architecturally consistent, non-overlapping
manner. While the document is written as generally as possible, the
initial solutions are limited to the chartered scope of the WG.
As discussed in [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions], the
goal of this work is not to focus exclusively on fully autonomic
nodes or networks. In reality, most networks will run with some
autonomic functions, while the rest of the network is traditionally
managed. This reference model allows for this hybrid approach.
This is a living document and will evolve with the technical
solutions developed in the ANIMA WG. Sections marked with (*) do not
represent current charter items. While this document must give a
long term architectural view, not all functions will be standardized
at the same time.
2. The Network View
This section describes the various elements in a network with
autonomic functions, and how these entities work together, on a high
level. Subsequent sections explain the detailed inside view for each
of the autonomic network elements, as well as the network functions
(or interfaces) between those elements.
Figure 1 shows the high level view of an Autonomic Network. It
consists of a number of autonomic nodes, which interact directly with
each other. Those autonomic nodes provide a common set of
capabilities across the network, called the "Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure" (ANI). The ANI provides functions like naming,
addressing, negotiation, synchronization, discovery and messaging.
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
Autonomic functions typically span several, possibly all nodes in the
network. The atomic entities of an autonomic function are called the
"Autonomic Service Agents" (ASA), which are instantiated on nodes.
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
: : Autonomic Function 1 : :
: ASA 1 : ASA 1 : ASA 1 : ASA 1 :
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
: : :
: +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + :
: : Autonomic Function 2 : :
: : ASA 2 : ASA 2 : :
: +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + :
: : :
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
: Autonomic Networking Infrastructure :
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
+--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+
| Node 1 |--------| Node 2 |--------| Node 3 |----...-----| Node n |
+--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+
Figure 1: High level view of an Autonomic Network
In a horizontal view, autonomic functions span across the network, as
well as the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure. In a vertical view,
a node always implements the ANI, plus it may have one or several
Autonomic Service Agents.
The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (ANI) therefore is the
foundation for autonomic functions. The current charter of the ANIMA
WG is to specify the ANI, using a few autonomic functions as use
cases.
3. The Autonomic Network Element
3.1. Architecture
This section describes an autonomic network element and its internal
architecture. The reference model explained in
[I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] shows the sources of
information that an autonomic service agent can leverage: Self-
knowledge, network knowledge (through discovery), Intent, and
feedback loops. Fundamentally, there are two levels inside an
autonomic node: the level of Autonomic Service Agents, and the level
of the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure, with the former using the
services of the latter. Figure 2 illustrates this concept.
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +-----------+ +------------+ +------------+ |
| | Autonomic | | Autonomic | | Autonomic | |
| | Service | | Service | | Service | |
| | Agent 1 | | Agent 2 | | Agent 3 | |
| +-----------+ +------------+ +------------+ |
| ^ ^ ^ |
| - - | - - API level - -| - - - - - - - |- - - |
| V V V |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Autonomic Networking Infrastructure |
| - Data structures (ex: certificates, peer information) |
| - Autonomic Control Plane |
| - discovery, negotiation and synchronisation functions |
| - Intent distribution |
| - aggregated reporting and feedback loops |
| - routing |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Basic Operating System Functions |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Model of an autonomic node
The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (lower part of Figure 2)
contains node specific data structures, for example trust information
about itself and its peers, as well as a generic set of functions,
independent of a particular usage. This infrastructure should be
generic, and support a variety of Autonomic Service Agents (upper
part of Figure 2). The Autonomic Control Plane is the summary of all
interactions of the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure with other
nodes and services.
The use cases of "Autonomics" such as self-management, self-
optimisation, etc, are implemented as Autonomic Service Agents. They
use the services and data structures of the underlying autonomic
networking infrastructure. The underlying Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure should itself be self-managing.
The "Basic Operating System Functions" include the "normal OS",
including the network stack, security functions, etc.
3.2. Unconstrained AN Nodes
Unconstrained nodes have the full ANI, with the full functionality
(details to be worked out). They support all the capabilities
outlined in the rest of the document. [tbc]
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
3.3. Constrained AN Nodes (*)
Constrained nodes have a reduced ANI, with a well-defined minimal
functionality (details to be worked out): They do need to be able to
join the network, and communicate with at least a helper node which
has full ANI functionality. Capabilities of constrained nodes need
to be defined here. [tbc]
4. The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure
The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure provides a layer of common
functionality across an Autonomic Network. It comprises "must
implement" functions and services, as well as extensions.
An Autonomic Function, comprising of Autonomic Service Agents on
nodes, can rely on the fact that all nodes in the network implement
at least the "must implement" functions.
4.1. Naming
Inside a domain, each autonomic device needs a domain specific
identifier. [tbc]
4.2. Addressing
Autonomic Service Agents (ASAs) need addressing to communicate with
each other. This section describes the addressing approach of the
Autonomic Networking Infrastructure, used by ASAs. It does NOT
describe addressing approaches for the data plane of the network,
which may be configured and managed in the traditional way. ASAs may
provide a service to negotiate address space, or addressing
mechanisms for the date plane. One use case for such an autonomic
function is described in [I-D.jiang-auto-addr-management]. The
addressing the ASAs use is in scope for this section, the address
space they negotiate for the data plane is not.
It is generally desirable to make the addressing scheme of the
Autonomic Networking Infrastructure as self-managing (autonomic) as
possible.
This section is currently under discussion. We currently believe
that we should address the following questions:
o How addressing inside the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane] is assigned and
managed autonomically.
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
o Whether, if there is no separated ACP, Autonomic Service Agents
(ASAs) shall have their own address space, or whether they should
use the address space configured by the administrator.
o How addressing is handled in the presence of non-autonomic nodes.
o Prefix assignment to interfaces.
o Whether links and link interfaces should get routable address
space, or whether link local addressing is sufficient.
o How the address space used in the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure is assigned and managed.
It is not clear at this point whether a specific address scheme
should be included in this document, or whether this document should
only define the requirements. This is for further discussion.
The document [I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing] describes one
way to autonomically assign loopback addresses to autonomic nodes, in
an autonomic, self-managed way. Other ideas and suggestions are
strongly encouraged.
4.3. Discovery
Traditionally, most of the information a node requires is provided
through configuration or northbound interfaces. An autonomic
function should only minimally rely on such northbound interfaces,
therefore it needs to discover resources in the network. This
section describes various discovery functions in an autonomic
network.
Discovering nodes and their properties: A core function to establish
an autonomic domain is the discovery of autonomic nodes, primarily
adjacent nodes. This may either leverage existing neighbour
discovery mechanisms, or new mechanisms.
Discovering services: Network services such as AAA should also be
discovered and not configured. Service discovery is required for
such tasks. An autonomic network can either leverage existing
service discovery functions, or build a new approach.
Thus the discovery mechanism could either be fully integrated with
negotiation and synchronization (next section) or could use an
independent discovery mechanism such as DNS Service Discovery or
Service Location Protocol. This choice is made independently for
each Autonomic Service Agent.
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
4.4. Signaling Between Autonomic Nodes
Autonomic nodes must communicate with each other, for example to
negotiate and/or synchronize network parameters of any kind and
complexity. This requires some form of signaling between autonomic
nodes. The document "A Generic Discovery and Negotiation Protocol
for Autonomic Networking" [I-D.carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol]
describes requirements for negotiation and synchronization in an
autonomic network. It also defines a protocol, GDNP, for this
purpose, including an integrated but optional discovery protocol.
4.5. Intent Distribution
Intent is the policy language of an Autonomic Network, see
Section 7.2 for general information on Intent. The distribution of
Intent is also a function of the Autonomic Control Plane. Various
methods can be used to distribute Intent across an autonomic domain.
4.6. Routing
All autonomic nodes in a domain must be able to communicate with each
other, and with autonomic nodes outside their own domain. Therefore,
an Autonomic Control Plane relies on a routing function. For
Autonomic Networks to be interoperable, they must all support one
common routing protocol.
4.7. The Autonomic Control Plane
The totality of autonomic interactions forms the "Autonomic Control
Plane". This control plane can be either implemented in the global
routing table of a node, such as IGPs in today's networks; or it can
be provided as an overlay network, as described in
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
The ACP can be operated in two ways: 1) as a separate virtual overlay
network, as described in
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. or 2), in the global
routing table. This sections discusses implications of both choices.
Also: Need to address how a separated ACP and an inline ACP
cooperate.
5. Security and Trust Infrastructure
An Autonomic Network is self-protecting. All protocols are secure by
default, without the requirement for the administrator to explicitly
configure security.
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
Autonomic nodes have direct interactions between themselves, which
must be secured. Since an autonomic network does not rely on
configuration, it is not an option to configure for example pre-
shared keys. A trust infrastructure such as a PKI infrastructure
must be in place. This section describes the principles of this
trust infrastructure.
A completely autonomic way to automatically and securely deploy such
a trust infrastructure is to set up a trust anchor for the domain,
and then use an approach as in the document "Bootstrapping Key
Infrastructures" [I-D.pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures].
5.1. Public Key Infrastructure
An autonomic domain uses a PKI model. The root of trust is a
certification authority (CA). A registrar acts as a registration
authority (RA).
A minimum implementation of an autonomic domain contains one CA, one
Registrar, and network elements.
5.2. Domain Certificate
We need to define how the fields in a domain certificate are to be
used. [tbc]
5.3. The MASA
Explain briefly the function, point to
[I-D.pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures]. [tbc]
5.4. Sub-Domains (*)
Explain how sub-domains are handled. (tbc)
5.5. Cross-Domain Functionality (*)
Explain how trust is handled between different domains. (tbc)
6. Autonomic Service Agents (ASA)
This section describes how autonomic services run on top of the
Autonomic Networking Infrastructure.
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
6.1. General Description of an ASA
general concepts, such as sitting on top of the ANI, etc. Also needs
to explain that on a constrained node (see Section 3.3) not all ASAs
may run, so we have two classes of ASAs: Ones that run on an
unconstrained node, and limited function ASAs that run also on
constrained nodes. We expect unconstrained nodes to support all
ASAs.
6.2. Specific ASAs for the Enrolment Process
The following ASAs provide essential, required functionality in an
autonomic network, and are therefor mandatory to implement on
unconstrained autonomic nodes.
6.2.1. The Enrolment ASA
This section describes the function of an autonomic node to bootstrap
into the domain with the help of an enrolment proxy (see previous
section). [tbc]
6.2.2. The Enrolment Proxy ASA
This section describes the function of an autonomic node that helps a
non-enrolled, adjacent devices to enrol into the domain. [tbc]
6.2.3. The Registrar ASA
This section describes the registrar function in an autonomic
network. It explains the tasks of a registrar element, and how
registrars are placed in a network, redundancy between several, etc.
[tbc]
7. Management and Programmability
This section describes how an Autonomic Network is managed, and
programmed.
7.1. How an AN Network Is Managed
Explain co-existence of traditional methods (SNMP, syslog, NETCONF,
etc) with new, autonomic methods. Those are: Intent, Aggregated
Reporting and feedback loops to the NOC. [tbc]
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
7.2. Intent (*)
This section describes Intent, and how it is managed. Explaining
ingest of intent, distribution, the nature (on top of what's in
[I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions]). That intent is
signed, time stamps, etc. Probably pointing back to
[I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions]. (Note intent
distribution is handled in Section 4.5) [tbc]
7.3. Aggregated Reporting (*)
An autonomic network offers through the autonomic control plane the
possibility to aggregate information inside the network, before
sending it to the admin of the network. While this can be seen or
implemented as a specific form of negotiation, the use case is
different and therefore mentioned here explicitly.
7.4. Feedback Loops to NOC(*)
Feedback loops are required in an autonomic network to allow the
intervention of a human administrator or central control systems,
while maintaining a default behaviour. Through a feedback loop an
administrator can be prompted with a default action, and has the
possibility to acknowledge or override the proposed default action.
7.5. APIs (*)
Need considerations for APIs: How can ASAs use the ANI? Where do we
need APIs? [tbc]
7.6. Data Model (*)
Need considerations for a data model. What it should cover, scope.
[tbc]
8. Coordination Between Autonomic Functions (*)
8.1. The Coordination Problem (*)
Different autonomic functions may conflict in setting certain
parameters. For example, an energy efficiency function may want to
shut down a redundant link, while a load balancing function would not
want that to happen. The administrator must be able to understand
and resolve such interactions, to steer autonomic network performance
to a given (intended) operational point.
Several interaction types may exist among autonomic functions, for
example:
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
o Cooperation: An autonomic function can improve the behavior or
performance of another autonomic function, such as a traffic
forecasting function used by a traffic allocation function.
o Dependency: An autonomic function cannot work without another one
being present or accessible in the autonomic network.
o Conflict: A metric value conflict is a conflict where one metric
is influenced by parameters of different autonomic functions. A
parameter value conflict is a conflict where one parameter is
modified by different autonomic functions.
Solving the coordination problem beyond one-by-one cases can rapidly
become intractable for large networks. Specifying a common
functional block on coordination is a first step to address the
problem in a systemic way. The coordination life-cycle consists in
three states:
o At build-time, a "static interaction map" can be constructed on
the relationship of functions and attributes. This map can be
used to (pre-)define policies and priorities on identified
conflicts.
o At deploy-time, autonomic functions are not yet active/acting on
the network. A "dynamic interaction map" is created for each
instance of each autonomic functions and on a per resource basis,
including the actions performed and their relationships. This map
provides the basis to identify conflicts that will happen at run-
time, categorize them and plan for the appropriate coordination
strategies/mechanisms.
o At run-time, when conflicts happen, arbitration is driven by the
coordination strategies. Also new dependencies can be observed
and inferred, resulting in an update of the dynamic interaction
map and adaptation of the coordination strategies and mechanisms.
Multiple coordination strategies and mechanisms exists and can be
devised. The set ranges from basic approaches such as random process
or token-based process, to approaches based on time separation and
hierarchical optimization, to more complex approaches such as multi-
objective optimization, and other control theory approaches and
algorithms family.
8.2. A Coordination Functional Block (*)
A common coordination functional block is a desirable component of
the ANIMA reference model. It provides a means to ensure network
properties and predictable performance or behavior such as stability,
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
and convergence, in the presence of several interacting autonomic
functions.
A common coordination function requires:
o A common description of autonomic functions, their attributes and
life-cycle.
o A common representation of information and knowledge (e.g.,
interaction maps).
o A common "control/command" interface between the coordination
"agent" and the autonomic functions.
Guidelines, recommendations or BCPs can also be provided for aspects
pertaining to the coordination strategies and mechanisms.
9. Hybrid Approach with Non-Autonomic Functions (*)
This section explains how autonomic functions can co-exist with non-
autonomic functions, and how a potential overlap is managed. This is
all about conflict resolution. Maybe we should re-name that section?
[I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] already mentions this.
Maybe we don't need much more here. (tbc)
10. Security Considerations
10.1. Threat Analysis
This is a preliminary outline of a threat analysis, to be expanded
and made more specific as the various Autonomic Networking
specifications evolve.
Since AN will hand over responsibility for network configuration from
humans or centrally established management systems to fully
distributed devices, the threat environment is also fully
distributed. On the one hand, that means there is no single point of
failure to act as an attractive target for bad actors. On the other
hand, it means that potentially a single misbehaving autonomic device
could launch a widespread attack, by misusing the distributed AN
mechanisms. For example, a resource exhaustion attack could be
launched by a single device requesting large amounts of that resource
from all its peers, on behalf of a non-existent traffic load.
Alternatively it could simply send false information to its peers,
for example by announcing resource exhaustion when this was not the
case. If security properties are managed autonomically, a
misbehaving device could attempt a distributed attack by requesting
all its peers to reduce security protections in some way. In
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
general, since autonomic devices run without supervision, almost any
kind of undesirable management action could in theory be attempted by
a misbehaving device.
If it is possible for an unauthorised device to act as an autonomic
device, or for a malicious third party to inject messages appearing
to come from an autonomic device, all these same risks would apply.
If AN messages can be observed by a third party, they might reveal
valuable information about network configuration, security
precautions in use, individual users, and their traffic patterns. If
encrypted, AN messages might still reveal some information via
traffic analysis, but this would be quite limited (for example, this
would be highly unlikely to reveal any specific information about
user traffic). AN messages are liable to be exposed to third parties
on any unprotected Layer 2 link, and to insider attacks even on
protected Layer 2 links.
11. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by IANA.
12. Acknowledgements
Many people have provided feedback and input to this document: Sheng
Jiang, Roberta Maglione, Jonathan Hansford.
13. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
00: Initial version.
14. References
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing]
Behringer, M., "An Autonomic IPv6 Addressing Scheme",
draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-00 (work in
progress), April 2015.
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
Autonomic Control Plane", draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-
control-plane-02 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol]
Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "A Generic Discovery and
Negotiation Protocol for Autonomic Networking", draft-
carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-03 (work in progress), April
2015.
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
[I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions]
Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking - Definitions and Design Goals", draft-irtf-
nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-07 (work in progress),
March 2015.
[I-D.jiang-auto-addr-management]
Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and Q. Qiong, "Autonomic
Networking Use Case for Auto Address Management", draft-
jiang-auto-addr-management-00 (work in progress), April
2014.
[I-D.pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures]
Pritikin, M., Behringer, M., and S. Bjarnason,
"Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-pritikin-
bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures-01 (work in progress),
September 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Michael H. Behringer (editor)
Cisco
Email: mbehring@cisco.com
Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Toerless Eckert
Cisco
Email: eckert@cisco.com
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model June 2015
Laurent Ciavaglia
Alcatel Lucent
Route de Villejust
Nozay 91620
France
Email: laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com
Bing Liu
Huawei Technologies
Q14, Huawei Campus
No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100095
P.R. China
Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com
Behringer, et al. Expires December 13, 2015 [Page 16]