I2NSF Problem Statement and Use cases
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-16

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (i2nsf WG)
Last updated 2017-06-20 (latest revision 2017-05-10)
Replaces draft-kumar-i2nsf-controller-use-cases, draft-hares-i2nsf-merged-problem-use-cases
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf xml html bibtex
Reviews GENART, SECDIR will not review this version
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Jan 2016 - Adopt use Cases, pro... )
Document shepherd Adrian Farrel
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-02-05)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Kathleen Moriarty
Send notices to "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state No IC
RFC Editor RFC Editor state RFC-EDITOR
I2NSF                                                           S. Hares
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Informational                                  D. Lopez
Expires: November 11, 2017                                Telefonica I+D
                                                                M. Zarny
                                                                 vArmour
                                                            C. Jacquenet
                                                          France Telecom
                                                                R. Kumar
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                J. Jeong
                                                 Sungkyunkwan University
                                                            May 10, 2017

                 I2NSF Problem Statement and Use cases
               draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-16

Abstract

   This document is the problem statement for Interface to Network
   Security Functions (I2NSF) as well as some companion use cases.

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 November 11, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Hares, et al.           Expires November 11, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           I2NSF Problem Use Case                 May 2017

   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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Problem Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Challenges Facing Security Service Providers  . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  Diverse Types of Security Functions . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  Diverse Interfaces to Control and Monitor NSFs  . . .   6
       3.1.3.  More Distributed NSFs and vNSFs . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.4.  More Demand to Control NSFs Dynamically . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.5.  Demand for Multi-Tenancy to Control and Monitor NSFs    8
       3.1.6.  Lack of Characterization of NSFs and Capability
               Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.7.  Lack of Mechanism for NSFs to Utilize External
               Profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.8.  Lack of Mechanisms to Accept External Alerts to
               Trigger Automatic Rule and Configuration Changes  . .   9
       3.1.9.  Lack of Mechanism for Dynamic Key Distribution to
               NSFs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Challenges Facing Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.1.  NSFs from Heterogeneous Administrative Domains  . . .  11
       3.2.2.  Today's Control Requests are Vendor Specific  . . . .  11
       3.2.3.  Difficult for Customer to Monitor the Execution of
               Desired Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.  Lack of Standard Interface to Inject Feedback to NSF  . .  13
     3.4.  Lack of Standard Interface for Capability Negotiation . .  14
     3.5.  Difficult to Validate Policies across Multiple Domains  .  14
     3.6.  Software-Defined Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  Basic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Access Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
Show full document text