Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection
draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (i2nsf WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rafael Marin-Lopez , Gabriel Lopez-Millan , Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia | ||
| Last updated | 2020-11-05 (latest revision 2020-10-30) | ||
| Replaces | draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Yang Validation | ☯ 0 errors, 0 warnings. | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional Resources | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Yoav Nir | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2019-08-06) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
Has 3 DISCUSSes. Needs one more YES or NO OBJECTION position to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Roman Danyliw | ||
| Send notices to | Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK | ||
| IANA expert review comments | In the XML examples, the "nc" namespace is defined but never used as far as I can tell. Which isn't an error or anything, just a bit surprising. Anyhow, looks good to me. | ||
I2NSF R. Marin-Lopez
Internet-Draft G. Lopez-Millan
Intended status: Standards Track University of Murcia
Expires: May 3, 2021 F. Pereniguez-Garcia
University Defense Center
October 30, 2020
Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection
draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12
Abstract
This document describes how to provide IPsec-based flow protection
(integrity and confidentiality) by means of an Interface to Network
Security Function (I2NSF) controller. It considers two main well-
known scenarios in IPsec: (i) gateway-to-gateway and (ii) host-to-
host. The service described in this document allows the
configuration and monitoring of IPsec Security Associations (SAs)
from a I2NSF Controller to one or several flow-based Network Security
Functions (NSFs) that rely on IPsec to protect data traffic.
The document focuses on the I2NSF NSF-facing interface by providing
YANG data models for configuring the IPsec databases (SPD, SAD, PAD)
and IKEv2. This allows IPsec SA establishment with minimal
intervention by the network administrator. It does not define any
new protocol.
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 https://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 May 3, 2021.
Marin-Lopez, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SDN-based IPsec Flow Protection October 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. SDN-based IPsec management description . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. IKE case: IKEv2/IPsec in the NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. IKE-less case: IPsec (no IKEv2) in the NSF. . . . . . . . 7
5. IKE case vs IKE-less case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Rekeying process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. NSF state loss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. NSF registration and discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. YANG configuration data models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. IKE case model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. IKE-less case model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.1. IKE case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.2. IKE-less case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.3. YANG modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Common YANG model for IKE and IKE-less cases . . . . 32
Appendix B. YANG model for IKE case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix C. YANG model for IKE-less case . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Appendix D. XML configuration example for IKE case (gateway-to-
gateway) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Show full document text