Skip to main content

An Autonomic Control Plane

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8994.
Authors Michael H. Behringer , Steinthor Bjarnason , Balaji BL , Toerless Eckert
Last updated 2015-08-18 (Latest revision 2015-08-17)
Replaces draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 8994 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
ANIMA WG                                               M. Behringer, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              S. Bjarnason
Intended status: Standards Track                              Balaji. BL
Expires: February 18, 2016                                     T. Eckert
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                         August 17, 2015

                       An Autonomic Control Plane


   Autonomic functions need a control plane to communicate, which
   depends on some addressing and routing.  This Autonomic Control Plane
   should ideally be self-managing, and as independent as possible of
   configuration.  One application is a "virtual out of band channel"
   for communications over a network that is not configured or mis-
   configured.  This document describes requirements and implementation
   options for an "Autonomic Control Plane".

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

   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 February 18, 2016.

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
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   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.  Use Cases for an Autonomic Control Plane  . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  An Infrastructure for Autonomic Functions . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Secure Bootstrap over an Unconfigured Network . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Data Plane Independent Permanent Reachability . . . . . .   4
   3.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Self-Creation of an Autonomic Control Plane . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Adjacency Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Authenticating Neighbors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.4.  Capability Negotiation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.5.  Channel Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.6.  Context Separation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.7.  Addressing inside the ACP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.8.  Routing in the ACP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.9.  Connecting a Controller / NMS system  . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Self-Healing Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Self-Protection Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  The Administrator View  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   12. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     12.1.  Initial version  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     12.2.  draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-00 . . . .  15
     12.3.  draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-01 . . . .  15
     12.4.  draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-02 . . . .  16
     12.5.  draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-03 . . . .  16
     12.6.  draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-00  . . . . . .  16
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   Autonomic Networking is a concept of self-management: Autonomic
   functions self-configure, and negotiate parameters and settings
   across the network.  [RFC7575] defines the fundamental ideas and
   design goals of Autonomic Networking.  A gap analysis of Autonomic
   Networking is given in [RFC7576].  The reference architecture for

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   Autonomic Networking in the IETF is currently being defined in the
   document [I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model]

   Autonomic functions need a stable and robust infrastructure to
   communicate on.  This infrastructure should be as robust as possible,
   and it should be re-usable by all autonomic functions.  [RFC7575]
   calls it the "Autonomic Control Plane".  This document defines the
   requirements and implementation options of an Autonomic Control

   Today, the management and control plane of networks typically runs in
   the global routing table, which is dependent on correct configuration
   and routing.  Misconfigurations or routing problems can therefore
   disrupt management and control channels.  Traditionally, an out of
   band network has been used to recover from such problems, or
   personnel is sent on site to access devices through console ports.
   However, both options are operationally expensive.

   In increasingly automated networks either controllers or distributed
   autonomic service agents in the network require a control plane which
   is independent of the network they manage, to avoid impacting their
   own operations.

   This document describes options for a self-forming, self-managing and
   self-protecting "Autonomic Control Plane" (ACP) which is inband on
   the network, yet as independent as possible of configuration,
   addressing and routing problems (for details how this achieved, see
   Section 5).  It therefore remains operational even in the presence of
   configuration errors, addressing or routing issues, or where policy
   could inadvertently affect control plane connectivity.  The Autonomic
   Control Plane serves several purposes at the same time:

   o  Autonomic functions communicate over the ACP.

   o  An operator can use it to log into remote devices, even if the
      data plane is misconfigured or unconfigured.

   o  A controller or network management system can use it to securely
      bootstrap network devices in remote locations, even if the network
      in between is not yet configured; no data-plane dependent
      bootstrap configuration is required.  An example of such a secure
      bootstrap process is described in

   o  Devices can use the ACP for direct decentralised communications,
      such as negotiations or discovery.  The ACP therefore supports
      directly Autonomic Networking functions, as described in

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

      [I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model].  For example, GDNP
      [I-D.carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol] can run inside the ACP.

   This document describes some use cases for the ACP in Section 2, it
   defines the requirements in Section 3, Section 4 gives an overview
   how an Autonomic Control Plane is constructed, and in Section 5 the
   detailed process is explained.  The document "Autonomic Network
   Stable Connectivity" [I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity] describes
   how the ACP can be used to provide stable connectivity for OAM
   applications.  It also explains on how existing management solutions
   can leverage the ACP in parallel with traditional management models,
   when to use the ACP versus the data plane, how to integrate IPv4
   based management, etc.

2.  Use Cases for an Autonomic Control Plane

2.1.  An Infrastructure for Autonomic Functions

   Autonomic Functions need a stable infrastructure to run on, and all
   autonomic functions should use the same infrastructure to minimise
   the complexity of the network.  This way, there is only need for a
   single discovery mechanism, a single security mechanism, and other
   process that distributed functions require.

2.2.  Secure Bootstrap over an Unconfigured Network

   Today, bootstrapping a new device typically requires all devices
   between a controlling node (such as an SDN controller) and the new
   device to be completely and correctly addressed, configured and
   secured.  Therefore, bootstrapping a network happens in layers around
   the controller.  Without console access (for example through an out
   of band network) it is not possible today to make devices securely
   reachable before having configured the entire network between.

   With the ACP, secure bootstrap of new devices can happen without
   requiring any configuration on the network.  A new device can
   automatically be bootstrapped in a secure fashion and be deployed
   with a domain certificate.  This does not require any configuration
   on intermediate nodes, because they can communicate through the ACP.

2.3.  Data Plane Independent Permanent Reachability

   Today, most critical control plane protocols and network management
   protocols are running in the data plane (global routing table) of the
   network.  This leads to undesirable dependencies between control and
   management plane on one side and the data plane on the other: Only if
   the data plane is operational, will the other planes work as

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   Data plane connectivity can be affected by errors and faults, for
   example certain AAA misconfigurations can lock an administrator out
   of a device; routing or addressing issues can make a device
   unreachable; shutting down interfaces over which a current management
   session is running can lock an admin irreversibly out of the device.
   Traditionally only console access can help recover from such issues.

   Data plane dependencies also affect NOC/SDN controller applications:
   Certain network changes are today hard to operate, because the change
   itself may affect reachability of the devices.  Examples are address
   or mask changes, routing changes, or security policies.  Today such
   changes require precise hop-by-hop planning.

   The ACP provides reachability that is largely independent of the data
   plane, which allows control plane and management plane to operate
   more robustly:

   o  For management plane protocols, the ACP provides the functionality
      of a "Virtual-out-of-band (VooB) channel", by providing
      connectivity to all devices regardless of their configuration or
      global routing table.

   o  For control plane protocols, the ACP allows their operation even
      when the data plane is temporarily faulty, or during transitional
      events, such as routing changes, which may affect the control
      plane at least temporarily.  This is specifically important for
      autonomic service agents, which could affect data plane

   The document "Autonomic Network Stable Connectivity"
   [I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity] explains the use cases for the
   ACP in significantly more detail and explains how the ACP can be used
   in practical network operations.

3.  Requirements

   The Autonomic Control Plane has the following requirements:

   1.  The ACP SHOULD provide robust connectivity: As far as possible,
       it should be independent of configured addressing, configuration
       and routing. (2 and 3 build on this requirement, but also have
       value on their own)

   2.  The ACP MUST have a separate address space from the data plane.
       Reason: traceability, debug-ability, separation from data plane,
       security (can block at edge)

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   3.  The ACP MUST use autonomically managed address space.  Reason:
       easy bootstrap and setup ("autonomic"); robustness (admin can't
       mess things up so easily).  ULA seems like a good choice for 1
       and 2.

   4.  The ACP MUST be generic.  Usable by all the functions and
       protocols of the AN infrastructure.  MUST NOT be tied to a
       particular protocol.

   5.  The ACP MUST provide security: Messages coming through the ACP
       MUST be authenticated to be from a trusted node, and SHOULD (very
       strong SHOULD) be encrypted.

   The default mode of operation of the ACP is hop-by-hop, because this
   interaction can be built on IPv6 link local addressing, which is
   autonomic, and has no dependency on configuration (requirement 1).
   It may be necessary to have end-to-end connectivity in some cases,
   for example to provide an end-to-end security association for some
   protocols.  This is possible, but then has a dependency on routable
   address space.

4.  Overview

   The Autonomic Control Plane is constructed in the following way (for
   details, see Section 5):

   o  Each autonomic node creates a virtual routing and forwarding (VRF)
      instance, or a similar virtual context.

   o  When an autonomic node discovers another autonomic node from the
      same domain, it authenticates that node and negotiates a secure
      tunnel to it.  These tunnels are placed into the previously set up
      VRF.  This creates an overlay network with hop-by-hop tunnels.

   o  Inside the ACP VRF, each node sets up a loopback interface with a
      ULA IPv6 address.

   o  Each node runs a lightweight routing protocol, to announce
      reachability of the loopback addresses inside the ACP.

   o  NMS systems or controllers have to be manually connected into the

   o  None of the above operations is reflected in the configuration of
      the device.

   The following figure illustrates the ACP.

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

           autonomic node 1                  autonomic node 2
          ...................               ...................
   secure .                 .   secure      .                 .  secure
   tunnel :  +-----------+  :   tunnel      :  +-----------+  :  tunnel
   ..--------| ACP VRF   |---------------------| ACP VRF   |---------..
          : / \         / \   <--routing-->   / \         / \ :
          : \ /         \ /                   \ /         \ / :
   ..--------| loopback  |---------------------| loopback  |---------..
          :  +-----------+  :               :  +-----------+  :
          :                 :               :                 :
          :   data plane    :...............:   data plane    :
          :                 :    link       :                 :
          :.................:               :.................:

                                 Figure 1

   The resulting overlay network is normally based exclusively on hop-
   by-hop tunnels.  This is because addressing used on links is IPv6
   link local addressing, which does not require any prior set-up.  This
   way the ACP can be built even if there is no configuration on the
   devices, or if the data plane has issues such as addressing or
   routing problems.

   An alternative ACP design can be achieved without the VRFs.  In this
   case, the autonomic virtual addresses are part of the data plane, and
   subject to routing, filtering, QoS, etc on the data plane.  The
   secure tunnels are in this case used by traffic to and from the
   autonomic address space.  They are still required to provide the
   authentication function for all autonomic packets.

5.  Self-Creation of an Autonomic Control Plane

   This section describes the steps to set up an Autonomic Control
   Plane, and highlights the key properties which make it
   "indestructible" against many inadvert changes to the data plane, for
   example caused by misconfigurations.

5.1.  Preconditions

   Each autonomic device has a globally unique domain certificate, with
   which it can cryptographically assert its membership of the domain.
   The document [I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] describes
   how a domain certificate can be automatically and securely derived
   from a vendor specific Unique Device Identifier (UDI) or IDevID
   certificate.  (Note the UDI used in this document is NOT the UUID
   specified in [RFC4122].)

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

5.2.  Adjacency Discovery

   Adjacency discovery exchanges identity information about neighbors,
   either the UDI or, if present, the domain certificate (see
   Section 5.1.  This document assumes the existence of a domain

   Adjacency discovery provides a table of information of adjacent
   neighbors.  Each neighbor is identified by a globally unique device
   identifier (UDI).

   The adjacency table contains the following information about the
   adjacent neighbors.

   o  Globally valid Unique device identifier (UDI).

   o  Link Local IPv6 address with its scope.

   o  Trust information: The certificate chain, if available.

   o  Validity of the trust (once validated, see next section).

   Adjacency discovery can populate this table by several means.  One
   such mechanism is to discover using link local multicast probes,
   which has no dependency on configured addressing and is preferable in
   an autonomic network.

   The "Generic Discovery and Negotiation Protocol" GDNP described in
   [I-D.carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol] is a possible candidate protocol
   to meet the requirements for Adjacency Discovery described here.

5.3.  Authenticating Neighbors

   Each neighbor in the adjacency table is authenticated.  The result of
   the authentication of the neighbor information is stored in the
   adjacency table.  We distinguish the following cases:

   o  Inside the domain: If the domain certificate presented is
      validated (including proof of possession of the corresponding
      private key) to be in the same domain as that of the autonomic
      entity then the neighbor is deemed to be inside the autonomic
      domain.  Only entities inside the autonomic domain will by default
      be able to establish the autonomic control plane.  Alternatively,
      policy can define whether to simply trust devices with the same
      trust anchor.  An ACP channel will be established.

   o  Outside the domain: If there is no domain certificate presented by
      the neighbor, or if the domain certificate presented is invalid or

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

      expired, then the neighbor is deemed to be outside the autonomic
      domain.  No ACP channel will be established.

   Certificate management questions such as enrolment, revocation,
   renewal, etc, are not discussed in this draft.  Please refer to
   [I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] for more details.

5.4.  Capability Negotiation

   Autonomic devices have different capabilities based on the type of
   device and where it is deployed.  To establish a trusted secure
   communication channel, devices must be able to negotiate with each
   neighbor a set of parameters for establishing the communication
   channel, most notably channel type and security type.  the
   communication channel, most notably channel type and security type.
   The channel type could be any tunnel mechanism that is feasible
   between two adjacent neighbors, for example a GRE tunnel.  The
   security type could be any of the channel protection mechanism that
   is available between two adjacent neighbors on a given channel type,
   for example TLS, DTLS or IPsec.  The establishment of the autonomic
   control plane can happen after the channel type and security type is

   The "Generic Discovery and Negotiation Protocol GDNP described in
   [I-D.carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol] is a possible candidate protocol
   to meet the requirements for capability negotiation described here.

5.5.  Channel Establishment

   After authentication and capability negotiation autonomic nodes
   establish a secure channel towards their direct AN neighbors with the
   above negotiated parameters.  In order to be independent of
   configured link addresses, these channels can be implemented in
   several ways:

   o  As a secure IP tunnel (e.g., IPsec, DTLS, TLS, etc.), using IPv6
      link local addresses between two adjacent neighbors.  This way,
      the ACP tunnels are independent of correct network wide routing.
      They also do not require larger than link local scope addresses,
      which would normally need to be configured or maintained.  Each AN
      node MUST support this function.

   o  L2 separation, for example via a separate 802.1q tag for ACP
      traffic.  This even further reduces dependency against the data
      plane (not even IPv6 link-local there required), but may be harder
      to implement.

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   Since channels are established between adjacent neighbors, the
   resulting overlay network does hop by hop encryption.  Each node
   decrypts incoming traffic from the ACP, and encrypts outgoing traffic
   to its neighbors in the ACP.  Routing is discussed in Section 5.8.

   If two nodes are connected via several links, the ACP SHOULD be
   established on every link, but it is possible to establish the ACP
   only on a sub-set of links.  Having an ACP channel on every link has
   a number of advantages, for example it allows for a faster failover
   in case of link failure, and it reflects the physical topology more
   closely.  Using a subset of links (for example, a single link),
   reduces resource consumption on the devices, because state needs to
   be kept per ACP channel.

5.6.  Context Separation

   The ACP is in a separate context from the normal data plane of the
   device.  This context includes the ACP channels IPv6 forwarding and
   routing as well as any required higher layer ACP functions.

   In classical network device platforms, a dedicated so called "Virtual
   routing and forwarding instance" (VRF) is one logical implementation
   option for the ACP.  If possible by the platform SW architecture,
   separation options that minimize shared components are preferred.
   The context for the ACP needs to be established automatically during
   bootstrap of a device and - as necessitated by the implementation
   option be protected from being modified unintential from data plane

   In addition this provides for security, because the ACP is not
   reachable from the global routing table.  Also, configuration errors
   from the data plane setup do not affect the ACP.

5.7.  Addressing inside the ACP

   The channels explained above only establish communication between two
   adjacent neighbors.  In order for the communication to happen across
   multiple hops, the autonomic control plane requires internal network
   wide valid addresses and routing.  Each autonomic node must create a
   loopback interface with a network wide unique address inside the ACP
   context mentioned in Section 5.6.

   We suggest to create network wide Unique Local Addresses (ULA) in
   accordance with [RFC4193] with the following algorithm:

   o  Prefix FC01::/8

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   o  Global ID: a hash of the domain ID; this way all devices in the
      same domain have the same /48 prefix.  Conversely, global ID from
      different domains are unlikely to clash, such that two networks
      can be merged, as long as the policy allows that merge.  See also
      Section 6 for a discussion on merging domains.

   o  Subnet ID and interface ID: These can be either derived
      deterministically from the name of the device, or assigned at
      registration time of the device.

   Links inside the ACP only use link-local IPv6 addressing, such that
   each node only requires one routable loopback address.

5.8.  Routing in the ACP

   Once ULA address are set up all autonomic entities should run a
   routing protocol within the autonomic control plane context.  This
   routing protocol distributes the ULA created in the previous section
   for reachability.  The use of the autonomic control plane specific
   context eliminates the probable clash with the global routing table
   and also secures the ACP from interference from the configuration
   mismatch or incorrect routing updates.

   The establishment of the routing plane and its parameters are
   automatic and strictly within the confines of the autonomic control
   plane.  Therefore, no manual configuration is required.

   All routing updates are automatically secured in transit as the
   channels of the autonomic control plane are by default secured.

   The routing protocol inside the ACP should be light weight and highly
   scalable to ensure that the ACP does not become a limiting factor in
   network scalability.  We suggest the use of RPL as one such protocol
   which is light weight and scales well for the control plane traffic.

5.9.  Connecting a Controller / NMS system

   The Autonomic Control Plane can be used by management systems, such
   as controllers or network management system (NMS) hosts (henceforth
   called simply "NMS hosts"), to connect to devices through it.  For
   this, an NMS host must have access to the ACP.  By default, the ACP
   is a self-protecting overlay network, which only allows access to
   trusted systems.  Therefore, a traditional NMS system does not have
   access to the ACP by default, just like any other external device.

   The preferred way for an NMS host to connect to the ACP of a network
   is to enrol that NMS host as a domain device, such that it shares a
   domain certificate with the same trust anchor as the network devices.

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   Then, the NMS host can automatically discover an adjacent network
   element, and join the ACP automatically, just like a network device
   would connect to a neighboring device.  Alternatively, if there is no
   directly connected autonomic network element, a secure connection to
   a single remote network element can be established by configuration,
   authenticated using the domain certificates.  There, the NMS host
   "enters" the ACP, from which point it can use the ACP to reach
   further nodes.

   If the NMS host does not support autonomic negotiation of the ACP,
   then it can be brought into the ACP by configuration.  On an adjacent
   autonomic node with ACP, the interface with the NMS host can be
   configured to be part of the ACP.  In this case, the NMS host is with
   this interface entirely and exclusively inside the ACP.  It would
   likely require a second interface for connections between the NMS
   host and administrators, or Internet based services.  This mode of
   connecting an NMS host has security consequences: All systems and
   processes connected to this implicitly trusted interface have access
   to all autonomic nodes on the entire ACP, without further
   authentication.  Thus, this connection must be physically controlled.

   In both options, the NMS host must be routed in the ACP.  This
   involves two parts: 1) the NMS host must point default to the AN
   device for all IPv6, or for the ULA prefix used inside the ACP, and
   2) the prefix used between AN node and NMS host must be announced
   into the ACP, and distributed there.

   The document "Autonomic Network Stable Connectivity"
   [I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity] explains in more detail how
   the ACP can be integrated in a mixed NOC environment.

6.  Self-Healing Properties

   The ACP is self-healing:

   o  New neighbors will automatically join the ACP after successful
      validation and will become reachable using their unique ULA
      address across the ACP.

   o  When any changes happen in the topology, the routing protocol used
      in the ACP will automatically adapt to the changes and will
      continue to provide reachability to all devices.

   o  If an existing device gets revoked, it will automatically be
      denied access to the ACP as its domain certificate will be
      validated against a Certificate Revocation List during
      authentication.  Since the revocation check is only done at the
      establishment of a new security association, existing ones are not

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

      automatically torn down.  If an immediate disconnect is required,
      existing sessions to a freshly revoked device can be re-set.

   The ACP can also sustain network partitions and mergers.  Practically
   all ACP operations are link local, where a network partition has no
   impact.  Devices authenticate each other using the domain
   certificates to establish the ACP locally.  Addressing inside the ACP
   remains unchanged, and the routing protocol inside both parts of the
   ACP will lead to two working (although partitioned) ACPs.

   There are few central dependencies: A certificate revocation list
   (CRL) may not be available during a network partition; a suitable
   policy to not immediately disconnect neighbors when no CRL is
   available can address this issue.  Also, a registrar or Certificate
   Authority might not be available during a partition.  This may delay
   renewal of certificates that are to expire in the future, and it may
   prevent the enrolment of new devices during the partition.

   After a network partition, a re-merge will just establish the
   previous status, certificates can be renewed, the CRL is available,
   and new devices can be enrolled everywhere.  Since all devices use
   the same trust anchor, a re-merge will be smooth.

   Merging two networks with different trust anchors requires the trust
   anchors to mutually trust each other (for example, by cross-signing).
   As long as the domain names are different, the addressing will not
   overlap (see Section 5.7).

7.  Self-Protection Properties

   As explained in Section 5, the ACP is based on channels being built
   between devices which have been previously authenticated based on
   their domain certificates.  The channels themselves are protected
   using standard encryption technologies like DTLS or IPsec which
   provide additional authentication during channel establishment, data
   integrity and data confidentiality protection of data inside the ACP
   and in addition, provide replay protection.

   An attacker will therefore not be able to join the ACP unless having
   a valid domain certificate, also packet injection and sniffing
   traffic will not be possible due to the security provided by the
   encryption protocol.

   The remaining attack vector would be to attack the underlying AN
   protocols themselves, either via directed attacks or by denial-of-
   service attacks.  However, as the ACP is built using link-local IPv6
   address, remote attacks are impossible.  The ULA addresses are only
   reachable inside the ACP context, therefore unreachable from the data

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   plane.  Also, the ACP protocols should be implemented to be attack
   resistant and not consume unnecessary resources even while under

8.  The Administrator View

   An ACP is self-forming, self-managing and self-protecting, therefore
   has minimal dependencies on the administrator of the network.
   Specifically, it cannot be configured, there is therefore no scope
   for configuration errors on the ACP itself.  The administrator may
   have the option to enable or disable the entire approach, but
   detailed configuration is not possible.  This means that the ACP must
   not be reflected in the running configuration of devices, except a
   possible on/off switch.

   While configuration is not possible, an administrator must have full
   visibility of the ACP and all its parameters, to be able to do
   trouble-shooting.  Therefore, an ACP must support all show and debug
   options, as for any other network function.  Specifically, a network
   management system or controller must be able to discover the ACP, and
   monitor its health.  This visibility of ACP operations must clearly
   be separated from visibility of data plane so automated systems will
   never have to deal with ACP aspect unless they explicitly desire to
   do so.

   Since an ACP is self-protecting, a device not supporting the ACP, or
   without a valid domain certificate cannot connect to it.  This means
   that by default a traditional controller or network management system
   cannot connect to an ACP.  See Section 5.9 for more details on how to
   connect an NMS host into the ACP.

9.  Security Considerations

   An ACP is self-protecting and there is no need to apply configuration
   to make it secure.  Its security therefore does not depend on

   However, the security of the ACP depends on a number of other

   o  The usage of domain certificates depends on a valid supporting PKI
      infrastructure.  If the chain of trust of this PKI infrastructure
      is compromised, the security of the ACP is also compromised.  This
      is typically under the control of the network administrator.

   o  Security can be compromised by implementation errors (bugs), as in
      all products.

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   Fundamentally, security depends on correct operation, implementation
   and architecture.  Autonomic approaches such as the ACP largely
   eliminate the dependency on correct operation; implementation and
   architectural mistakes are still possible, as in all networking

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action by IANA.

11.  Acknowledgements

   This work originated from an Autonomic Networking project at Cisco
   Systems, which started in early 2010.  Many people contributed to
   this project and the idea of the Autonomic Control Plane, amongst
   which (in alphabetical order): Ignas Bagdonas, Parag Bhide, Alex
   Clemm, Toerless Eckert, Yves Hertoghs, Bruno Klauser, Max Pritikin,
   Ravi Kumar Vadapalli.

   Further input and suggestions were received from: Rene Struik, Brian
   Carpenter, Benoit Claise.

12.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

12.1.  Initial version

   First version of this document:

12.2.  draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-00

   Initial version of the anima document; only minor edits.

12.3.  draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-01

   o  Clarified that the ACP should be based on, and support only IPv6.

   o  Clarified in intro that ACP is for both, between devices, as well
      as for access from a central entity, such as an NMS.

   o  Added a section on how to connect an NMS system.

   o  Clarified the hop-by-hop crypto nature of the ACP.

   o  Added several references to GDNP as a candidate protocol.

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 15]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   o  Added a discussion on network split and merge.  Although, this
      should probably go into the certificate management story longer

12.4.  draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-02

   Addresses (numerous) comments from Brian Carpenter.  See mailing list
   for details.  The most important changes are:

      Introduced a new section "overview", to ease the understanding of
      the approach.

      Merged the previous "problem statement" and "use case" sections
      into a mostly re-written "use cases" section, since they were

      Clarified the relationship with draft-eckert-anima-stable-

12.5.  draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-03

   o  Took out requirement for IPv6 --> that's in the reference doc.

   o  Added requirement section.

   o  Changed focus: more focus on autonomic functions, not only virtual
      out of band.  This goes a bit throughout the document, starting
      with a changed abstract and intro.

12.6.  draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-00

   No changes; re-submitted as WG document.

13.  References

              Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L.,
              Liu, B., Jeff, J., and J. Strassner, "A Reference Model
              for Autonomic Networking", draft-behringer-anima-
              reference-model-03 (work in progress), June 2015.

              Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
              Autonomic Control Plane", draft-behringer-autonomic-
              control-plane-00 (work in progress), June 2014.

Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 16]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

              Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "A Generic Discovery and
              Negotiation Protocol for Autonomic Networking", draft-
              carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-04 (work in progress), June

              Eckert, T. and M. Behringer, "Using Autonomic Control
              Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM", draft-
              eckert-anima-stable-connectivity-01 (work in progress),
              March 2015.

              Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., and S.
              Bjarnason, "Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-
              pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-02 (work in
              progress), July 2015.

   [RFC4122]  Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
              Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,

   [RFC7575]  Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
              Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
              Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,

   [RFC7576]  Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and M. Behringer, "General Gap
              Analysis for Autonomic Networking", RFC 7576,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7576, June 2015,

Authors' Addresses

   Michael H. Behringer (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Building D, 45 Allee des Ormes
   Mougins  06250


Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 17]
Internet-Draft         An Autonomic Control Plane            August 2015

   Steinthor Bjarnason
   Cisco Systems


   Balaji BL
   Cisco Systems


   Toerless Eckert
   Cisco Systems


Behringer, et al.       Expires February 18, 2016              [Page 18]