I2NSF Problem Statement and Use cases
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (i2nsf WG)
Last updated 2016-03-17 (latest revision 2016-02-02)
Replaces draft-hares-i2nsf-merged-problem-use-cases
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestone: Jan 2016 - Adopt use Cases, pro... )
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
I2NSF                                                           S. Hares
Internet-Draft                                                 L. Dunbar
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: August 5, 2016                                         D. Lopez
                                                          Telefonica I+D
                                                                M. Zarny
                                                           Goldman Sachs
                                                            C. Jacquenet
                                                          France Telecom
                                                        February 2, 2016

                 I2NSF Problem Statement and Use cases
             draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-00.txt

Abstract

   This document describes the problem statement for Interface to
   Network Security Functions (I2NSF) and summary of the I2NSF 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 August 5, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Hares, et al.            Expires August 5, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        I2NSF Existing Work Analysis         February 2016

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Facing Security Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  Diverse Types of Security Functions . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  Diverse Interfaces to Control NSFS  . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.3.  Diverse Interface to monitor the behavior of NSFs . .   6
       3.1.4.  More Distributed NSFs and vNSFs . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.5.  More Demand to Control NSFs Dynamically . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.6.  Demand for multi-tenancy to control and monitor NSFs    7
       3.1.7.  Lack of Characterization of NSFs and Capability
               Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.8.  Lack of Mechanism for NSFs to utilize external
               profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.9.  Lack of Mechanisms to accept external alerts to
               trigger automatic configuration changes . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.10. Lack of mechanism for dynamic key distribution to
               NSFs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Challenges Facing Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.1.  NSFs from Heterogeneous Administrative Domains  . . .  10
       3.2.2.  Today's Control Requests are Vendor Specific  . . . .  10
       3.2.3.  Difficulty to Monitor the Execution of Desired
               Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.3.  Difficulty to Validate Policies across Multiple Domains .  12
     3.4.  Lack of Standard Interface to Inject Feedback to NSF  . .  13
     3.5.  Lack of Standard Interface for Capability Negotiation . .  13
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  General Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.2.  Access Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.3.  Cloud Datacenter Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.3.1.  On-Demand Virtual Firewall Deployment . . . . . . . .  17
       4.3.2.  Firewall Policy Deployment Automation . . . . . . . .  17
Show full document text