I2NSF BOF S. Hares
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track A. Pastor
Expires: April 20, 2016 Telefonica I+D
K. Wang
China Mobile
D. Zhang
M. Zarny
Goldman Sachs
October 18, 2015
Analysis of Use Cases and Gaps in Technology for I2NSF
draft-hares-i2nsf-use-case-gap-analysis-00.txt
Abstract
This document provides a summary of the I2NSF use cases plus a
summary of the stat of the art in industries and IETF work which is
relevant to the Interface to Network Security Function (I2NSF). The
I2NSF focus is to define data models and interfaces in order to
control and monitor the physical and virtual aspects of network
security functions. The use cases are organized in two basic
scenarios. In the access network scenario, mobile and residential
users access NSF capabilities using their network service provider
infrastructure. In the data center scenario customers manage NSFs
hosted in the data center infrastructure.
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 April 20, 2016.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 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
(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
1.1. What is I2NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. I2NSF Standarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Structure of the document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. General Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Instantiation and Configuration of NSFs . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Updating of NSFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Collecting the Status of NSFs . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Validation of NSFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Access Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. vNSF Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. vNSF Customer Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Cloud Datacenter Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.1. On-Demand Virtual Firewall Deployment . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.2. Firewall Policy Deployment Automation . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Considerations on Policy and Configuration . . . . . . . 12
4.4.1. Translating Policies into NSF Capabilities . . . . . 13
5. Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Structure of the gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. IETF Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.1. Traffic Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. ETSI NFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.1. ETSI Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.2. I2NSF Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4. OPNFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4.1. OPNFV Moon Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4.2. Gap Analysis for OPNFV Moon Project . . . . . . . . . 26
5.5. OpenStack Security Firewall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
5.5.1. Overview of API for Security Group . . . . . . . . . 27
5.5.2. Overview of Firewalls as a Service . . . . . . . . . 27
5.5.3. I2NSF Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.6. CSA Secure Cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.6.1. CSA Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.6.2. I2NSF Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.7. In-depth Review of IETF protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.7.1. NETCONF and RESTCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.7.2. I2RS Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.7.3. NETMOD Yang modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.7.4. COPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.7.5. PCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.7.6. NSIS - Next steps in Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6. Summarized Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. Introduction
Enterprise, residential, and mobile customers are becoming more and
more aware of the need for network security, just to find that
security services are hard to operate and become expensive in the
case of reasonably sophisticated ones. This general trend has caused
numerous operators and security vendors to start to leverage on
cloud-based models to deliver security solutions. In particular, the
methods around Network Function Virtualization (NFV) are meant to
facilitate the elastic deployment of software images providing the
network services, and require the management of various resources by
customers, who may not own or physically host those network
functions.
There are numerous benefits by defining such interfaces. Operators
could provide more flexible and customized security services for
specific users and this would provide more efficient and secure
protection to each user.
This document provides an analysis of the use cases, gaps analysis of
existing technology, recommendations for requirements for I2NSF, and
security considerations.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
Customer + Access + PoP/Datacenter
| | +--------+
| ,-----+--. |Network |
| ,' | `-|Operator|
+-------------+ | /+----+ | |Mgmt Sys|
| Residential |-+------/-+vCPE+----+ +--------+
+-------------+ | / +----+ | \ | :
| / | \ | |
+-------+ | ; +----+ | +----+ |
| Cloud |---+---+----+ vPE+--+----+ NSF| |
+-------+ | : +----+ | +----+ |
| : | / |
+--------+ | : +----+ | / ;
| Mobile |-+-----\--+vEPC+----+ /
+--------+ | \ +----+ | ,-'
| `--. | _.-'
| `----+----''
+ +
Figure 1: NSF and actors
1.1. What is I2NSF
A Network Security Function (NSF) is a function used to ensure
integrity, confidentiality, or availability of network
communications, to detect unwanted network activity, or to block or
at least mitigate the effects of unwanted activity. NSFs are
provided and consumed in increasingly diverse environments. Users
could consume network security services enforced by NSFs hosted by
one or more providers - which may be their own enterprise, service
providers, or a combination of both. Similarly, service providers
may offer their customers network security services that are enforced
by multiple security products, functions from different vendors, or
open source technologies. NSFs may be provided by physical and/or
virtualized infrastructure. Without standard interfaces to control
and monitor the behavior of NSFs, it has become virtually impossible
for providers of security services to automate service offerings that
utilize different security functions from multiple vendors.
1.2. I2NSF Standarization
The Interface to NSF devices (I2NSF) work proposes to standardize a
set of software interfaces and data modules to control and monitor
the physical and virtual NSFs. Since different security vendors
support different features and functions, the I2NSF will focus on the
flow-based NSFs that provide treatment to packets or flows such found
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
in IPS/IDS devices, web filtering devices, flow filtering devices,
deep packet inspection devices, pattern matching inspection devices,
and re-mediation devices.
There are two layers of interfaces envisioned in the I2NSF approach:
o The I2NSF Capability Layer specifies how to control and monitor
NSFs at a functional implementation level. This the focus for
this phase of the I2NSF Work.
o The I2NSF Service Layer defines how the security policies of
clients may be expressed and monitored.
For the I2NSF capability layer, the I2NSF work proposes an
interoperable protocol that passes NSF provisioning rules and
orchestration information between I2NSF client on a network manager
and I2NSF agent on an NSF device. It is envisioned that clients of
the I2NSF interfaces include management applications, service
orchestration systems, network controllers, or user applications that
may solicit network security resources.
The I2NSF work to define this protocol includes the following work:
o defining an informational model that defines the concepts for
standardizing the control and monitoring of NSFs,
o defining a set of Yang data models from the information model that
identifies the data that must be passed,
o creating a capability registry (an IANA registry) that identifies
the characteristics and behaviours of NSFs in vendor-neutral
vocabulary without requiring the NSFs to be standardized.
o examining existing secure communication mechanisms to identify the
appropriate ones for carrying the data that provisions and
monitors information between the NSFs and their management entity
(or entities).
1.3. Structure of the document
This document reviews the terminology (section 3), analyzes the use
cases (section 4) and gaps in current technology (section 5),
recommends certain requirements for I2NSF protocol(section 6), and
discusses security consideration (section 8).
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
3. Terminology
o Network Security Function (NSF): A functional block within a
network infrastructure to ensure integrity, confidentiality and
availability of network communications, to detect unwanted
activity, and to deter and block this unwanted activity or at
least mitigate its effects on the network
o vNSF: Virtual Network Security Function: A network security
function that runs as a software image on a virtualized
infrastructure, and can be requested by one domain but may be
owned or managed by another domain.
o type of NSFs: NSFs considered in this draft include virtualized
and non-virtualized NSFs.
o Cloud DC: A data center that is not on premises of enterprises,
but has compute/storage resources that can be requested or
purchased by the enterprises. The enterprise is actually getting
a virtual data center. The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA)
(http://cloudsecurityalliance.org) focus on adding security to
this environment. A specific research topic is security as a
service within the cloud data center.
o Cloud-based security functions: Network Security Function (NSF)
hosted and managed by service providers or different
administrative entity.
o DC: Data Center
o Domain: The term Domain in this draft has the following different
connotations in different scenarios:
* Client--Provider relationship, i.e. client requesting some
network security functions from its provider;
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
* Domain A - Domain B relationship, i.e. one operator domain
requesting some network security functions from another
operator domain; or
* Applications -- Network relationship, i.e. an application (e.g.
cluster of servers) requesting some functions from network,
etc.
The domain context is important because it indicates the
interactions the security is focused on.
o I2NSF agent - a piece of software in a device that implements a
network security function which receives provisioning information
and requests for operational data (monitoring data) across the
I2NSF protocol from an I2NSF client.
o I2NSF client - A security client software that utilizes the I2NSF
protocol to read, write or change the provisioning network
security device via software interface using the I2NSF protocol
(denoted as I2RS Agent)
o I2NSF Management System - I2NSF client operates within an network
management system which serves as a collections and distribution
point for security provisioning and filter data. This management
system is denoted as I2NS management system in this document.
o Virtual Security Function: a security function that can be
requested by one domain but may be owned or managed by another
domain.
4. Use Cases
This section discusses general use cases, access use cases, and cloud
use cases.
4.1. General Use Cases
User request security services through specific clients (a customer
app, the NSP BSS/OSS or management platform...) and the appropriate
NSP network entity will invoke the (v)NSFs according to the user
service request. We will call this network entity the security
controller. The interaction between the entities discussed above
(client, security controller, NSF) is shown in the following diagram:
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
+----------+
+-------+ | | +-------+
| | Interface 1 |Security | Interface 2 | NSF(s)|
|Client <-------------> <------------------> |
| | |Controller| | |
+-------+ | | +-------+
+----------+
Figure 2: Interaction between Entities
Interface 1 is used for receiving security requirements from client
and translating them into commands that NSFs can understand and
execute. Moreover, it is also responsible for giving feedback of the
NSF security statistics to client. Interface 2 is used for
interacting with NSFs according to commands, and collect status
information about NSFs.
4.1.1. Instantiation and Configuration of NSFs
Client sends collected security requirements through Interface 1 to
the security controller in the NSP network, which then translates
them into a a set of security functions. Then the corresponding NSFs
are instantiated and configured through Interface 2.
As an example, consider an enterprise user A who wants to prevent a
certain kind of traffic from flowing to their network. Such a
requirement is sent from client to security controller through
Interface 1. The security controller translates the requirement into
a firewall function plus a rules for filtering out TCP and/or UDP
data packets. Then it instantiates a firewall NSF through Interface
2. The corresponding filter rules are also configured onto this
firewall NSF through Interface 2.
4.1.2. Updating of NSFs
A user can direct the client to require the update of security
service functions, including adding/deleting a security service
function and updating configurations of former security service
function.
As an example, consider a user who has instantiated a security
service before and decides to enable an additional IDS service. This
requirement will be sent to the security controller through Interface
1 and be translated, so the security controller instantiates and
configures an IDS NSF through Interface 2.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
4.1.3. Collecting the Status of NSFs
When users want to get the executing status of security service, they
can request the status statistics information of NSFs from the
client. The security controller will collect NSF status statistics
information through Interface 2, consolidate them, and give feedback
to client through Interface 1. This interface can be used to collect
not only individual service information, but also aggregated data
suitable for tasks like infrastructure security assessment.
4.1.4. Validation of NSFs
Customers may require to validate NSF availability, provenance, and
its correct execution. This validation process, especially relevant
for vNSFs, includes at least
Integrity of the NSF. Ensure that the NSF is not manipulated.
Isolation. The execution of the NSF is self-contained for privacy
requirements in multi-tenancy scenarios.
In order to achieve this the security controller has to collect
security measurements and share them with an independent and trusted
third party, allowing the user to attest the NSF by using Interface 1
and the information of the trusted third party.
4.2. Access Networks
This scenario describes use cases for users (enterprise user, network
administrator, residential user...) that request and manage security
services hosted in the network service provider (NSP) infrastructure.
Given that NSP customers are essentially users of their access
networks, the scenario is essentially associated with their
characteristics, as well as with the use of vNSFs.
The Virtual CPE described in [NFVUC] use cases #5 and #7 cover the
model of virtualization for mobile and residential access, where the
operator may offload security services from the customer local
environment (or even the terminal) to the operator infrastructure
supporting the access network.
These use cases defines the operator interaction with vNSFs through
automated interfaces, typically by B2B communications performed by
the operator management systems (OSS/BSS).
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
4.2.1. vNSF Deployment
The deployment process consists of instantiating a NSF on a
Virtualization Infrastructure (NFVI), within the NSP administrative
domain(s) or with other external domain(s). This is a required step
before a customer can subscribe to a security service supported in
the vNSF.
4.2.2. vNSF Customer Provisioning
Once a vNSF is deployed, any customer can subscribe to it. The
provisioning lifecycle includes:
Customer enrollment and cancellation of the subscription to a
vNSF.
Configuration of the vNSF, based on specific configurations, or
derived from common security policies defined by the NSP.
Retrieve and list of the vNSF functionalities, extracted from a
manifest or a descriptor. The NSP management systems can demand
this information to offer detailed information through the
commercial channels to the customer.
4.3. Cloud Datacenter Scenario
In a datacenter, network security mechanisms such as firewalls may
need to be added or removed dynamically for a number of reasons. It
may be explicitly requested by the user, or triggered by a pre-
agreed-upon service level agreement (SLA) between the user and the
provider of the service. For example, the service provider may be
required to add more firewall capacity within a set timeframe
whenever the bandwidth utilization hits a certain threshold for a
specified period. This capacity expansion could result in adding new
instances of firewalls. Likewise, a service provider may need to
provision a new firewall instance in a completely new environment due
to a new requirement.
The on-demand, dynamic nature of deployment essentially requires that
the network security "devices" be in software or virtual form
factors, rather than in a physical appliance form. (This is a
provider-side concern. Users of the firewall service are agnostic,
as they should, as to whether or not the firewall service is run on a
VM or any other form factor. Indeed, they may not even be aware that
their traffic traverses firewalls.)
Furthermore, new firewall instances need to be placed in the "right
zone" (domain). The issue applies not only to multi-tenant
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
environments where getting the tenant right is of paramount
importance but also to environments owned and operated by a single
organization with its own service segregation policies. For example,
an enterprise may mandate that firewalls serving Internet traffic and
business-to-business (B2B) traffic be separate; or that IPS/IDS
services for investment banking and non-banking traffic be separate
for regulatory reasons.
4.3.1. On-Demand Virtual Firewall Deployment
A service provider operated cloud data center could serve tens of
thousands of clients. Clients' compute servers are typically hosted
on virtual machines (VMs), which could be deployed across different
server racks located in different parts of the data center. It is
often not technically and/or financially feasible to deploy dedicated
physical firewalls to suit each client's myriad security policy
requirements. What is needed is the ability to dynamically deploy
virtual firewalls for each client's set of servers based on
established security policies and underlying network topologies.
---+-----------------------------+-----
| |
+---+ +-+-+
|vFW| |vFW|
+---+ +-+-+
| Client #1 | Client #2
---+-------+--- ---+-------+---
+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+
|vM | |vM | |vM | |vM |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 3: NSF in DataCenter
4.3.2. Firewall Policy Deployment Automation
Firewall configuration today is a highly complex process that
involves consulting established security policies, translating those
policies into firewall rules, further translating those rules into
vendor-specific configuration sets, identifying all the firewalls,
and pushing configurations to those firewalls.
This is often a time consuming, complex and error-prone process even
within a single organization/enterprise framework. It becomes far
more complex in provider-owned cloud networks that serve myriad
customers.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
Automation can help address many of these issues. Automation works
best when it can leverage a common set of standards that will work
across multiple entities.
4.3.2.1. Client-Specific Security Policy in Cloud VPNs
Clients of service provider operated cloud data centers need not only
secure virtual private networks (VPNs) but also virtual security
functions that enforce the clients' security policies. The security
policies may govern communications within the clients' own virtual
networks and those with external networks. For example, VPN service
providers may need to provide firewall and other security services to
their VPN clients. Today, it is generally not possible for clients
to dynamically view, much less change, what, where and how security
policies are implemented on their provider-operated clouds. Indeed,
no standards-based framework that allows clients to retrieve/manage
security policies in a consistent manner across different providers
exists.
4.4. Considerations on Policy and Configuration
NSF configurations can vary from simple rules (i.e. block a DDoS
attack) to very complex configuration ( i.e. define a user firewall
rules per application, protocol, source and destination port and
address). The possibility of using configuration templates per
control and management type is a common option as well.
A NSP can push security policies using complex configurations in
their managed vNSF through its management system. The open Control
and management interface has to accommodate this application-driven
behavior.
Computer-savvy customers may pursue a similar application-driven
configuration through the open Control and management interface, but
standard residential and mobile customers may prefer to use the
definition of security policies in the form of close-to-natural-
language sentences with high-level directives or a guide
configuration process. The representation for these policies will be
of the form:
+-------+ +------+ +------+ +------------------+
|Subject| + |Action| + |Object| + |Field_type = Value|
+-------+ +------+ +------+ +------------------+
Figure 4: High-Level Security Policy Format
Subject indicates the customer or device in the access.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
Action can include a variety of intent-based actions: check,
redirect, allow, block, record, inspect..
Object can be optional and specifies the nature of the action. The
default is all the customer traffic, but others possible values are
connections and connections attempts.
Field_type allows to create fine-grained policies, including
destinations list (i.e. IPs, domains), content types (i.e. files,
emails), windows of time (i.e. weekend), protocol or network service
(i.e. HTTP).
An example of a customer policy is:
"My son is allowed to access Facebook from 18:30 to 20:00"
4.4.1. Translating Policies into NSF Capabilities
Policies expressed in the above model are suitable for what we
depicted as Interface 1 in Figure 2. In order to allow the security
controller to deal with the different NSFs an intermediate
representation used for expressing specific configurations in a
device-independent format is required. For this purpose, the
definition of a set of security capabilities provides a means for
categorizing the actions performed by network security functions. An
initial, high-level set of such capabilities consists of:
o Identity Management: Includes all services related with identity,
authentication and key management. Some examples are:
* AAA (Authentication, Authorization, Accounting) services
* Remote identity management
* Remote identity management
o Traffic Inspection: A common use case for customers accessing the
Internet or additional services through it is security
supervision. Control and Management interfaces will allow the
configuration of the vNSF inspection features: signatures updates,
behavioral parameters or type of traffic to supervise. Some
examples are:
* IDS/IPS (Intrusion Detection System/Intrusion Prevention
System,
* Deep packet inspection,
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
* Data leakage protection,
o Traffic Manipulation: A more intrusive use case of NSF includes
the capacity of manipulate the client traffic. Control and
Management interfaces will allow the configuration of the NSF
manipulation features, such as redirect and block rules. Some
examples are:
* Redirect traffic, as in the case of captive portals,
* Block traffic: Firewalls, intrusion prevention system, DDOS/
Anti-DOS (Distributed Denial-of-Service/Anti-Denial-of-
Service),
* Encrypt traffic: VPN services that encapsulate and encrypt the
user traffic. A SSL VPN is a representative example.
o Impersonation:Some NSFs can impersonate a customer service or
Internet service to provide security functions. Control and
Management interfaces will allow the configuration of the service
to impersonate and his behavioral. Some examples are:
* Honeypots, impersonating customer services, such as HTTP,
NetBios or SSH,
* Anonymization services, hiding the source identity, as in the
case of TOR.
Service Chain will allow for more than one of the aforementioned
functions to engage in a specific order to a particular flow
5. Gap Analysis
5.1. Structure of the gap analysis
This document provides a analysis of the gaps in the state of art in
the following industry forums:
IETF working groups (section 5.2)
ETSI Network Functions Virtualization Industry Specification Group
(ETSI NFV ISG), (section 5.3)
OPNFV Open Source Group (section 5.4)
Open Stack - Firewall as a service (OpenStack Firewall FaaS)
(section 5.5) (http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-
cloud/content/install_neutron-fwaas-agent.html)
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
Cloud Security Alliance Security (CSA)as a Service (section 5.6)
(https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/research/secaas/#_overview)
In-Depth Review of Some IETF Protocols (section 5.7)
5.2. IETF Gap analysis
The IETF gap analysis first examines the IETF mechanisms which have
been developed to secure the IP traffic flows through a network.
Traffic filters have been defined by IETF specifications at the
access points, the middle-boxes, or the routing systems. Protocols
have been defined to carry provisioning and filtering traffic between
a management system and an IP system (router or host system).
Current security work (SACM working group (WG), MILE WG, and DOTS WG)
is providing correlation of events monitored with the policy set by
filters. This section provides a review the filter work, protocols,
and security correlation for monitors.
5.2.1. Traffic Filters
5.2.1.1. Overview
The earliest filters defined by IETF were access filters which
controlled the acceptance of IP packet data flows. Additional policy
filters were created as part of the following protocols:
o COPS protocol [RFC2748] for controlling access to networks,
o Next steps in Signalling (NSIS) work (architecture: [RFC4080]
protocol: [RFC5973]), and
o the Port Control Protocol (PCP) to enables IPv4 to IPv6 flexible
address and port mapping for NATs and Firewalls,
Today NETMOD and I2RS Working groups are specifying additional
filters in Yang modules to be used as part of the NETCONF or I2RS
enhancement of NETCONF/RESTCONF.
The routing filtering is outside the scope of the flow filtering, but
flow filtering may be impacted by route filtering. An initial model
for the routing policy is in [I-D.shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model]
This section provides an overview of the flow filtering as an
introduction to the I2NSF GAP analysis. Additional detail on
NETCONF, NETMOD, I2RS, PCP, and NSIS is available in the Detailed
I2NSF analysis.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
5.2.1.1.1. Data Flow Filters in NETMOD and I2RS
The current work on expanding these filters is focused oncombining a
configuration and monitoring protocol with Yang data models.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model] provides a set of access lists filters
which can permit or deny traffic flow based on headers at the MAC, IP
layer, and Transport layer. The configuration and monitoring
protocols which can pass the filters are: NETCONF protocol [RFC6241],
RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], and the I2RS protocol. The
NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols install these filters into forwarding
tables. The I2RS protocol uses the ACLs as part of the filters
installed in an ephemeral protocol-independent filter-based RIB
[I-D.kini-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model] which controls the flow of traffic
on interfaces specifically controlled by the I2RS filter-based FIB.
netconf
+---------------+ / \ +---------------+
| Device: ACLs |-- / \---|Device: ACLS |
| I2RS FB RIB | | I2RS FB RIB |
|routing policy | | routing policy|
| | | |
===|===============|=============|===============|=
+---------------+ data flow +---------------+
Figure 5 -I2RS Filter-Based RIB
The I2RS protocol is a programmatic interface to the routing system.
At this time, the I2RS is targeted to be extensions to the NETCONF/
RESTCONF protocols to allow the NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol to support
a highly programmatic interface with high bandwidth of data, highly
reliable notifications, and ephemeral state (see
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]). Please see the background section on
I2RS for additional details on the requirements for this extension to
the NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol suite.
The vocabulary set in [I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model] is limited, so
additional protocol independent filters were written for the I2RS
Filter-Based RIBs in [I-D.hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model], and
protocol specific filters for SFC
[I-D.dunbar-i2rs-discover-traffic-rules].
One thing important to note is that NETCONF and RESTCONF manage
device layer yang models. However, as figure 6 shows, there are
multiple device level, network-wide level, and application level yang
modules. The access lists defined by the device level forwarding
table may be impacted by the routing protocols, the I2RS ephemeral
protocol independent Filter-Based FIB, or some network-wide security
issue (IPS/IDS).
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
+--------------------------------------------+
|Application Network Wide: Intent |
+--------------------------------------------+
|Network-wide level: L3SM L3VPN service model|
+--------------------------------------------+
|Device level: Protocol Independent: I2RS |
| RIB, Topology, Filter-Based RIB |
+--------------------------------------------+
|Device Level:Protocol Yang modules |
| (ISIS, OSPF, BGP, EVPN, L2VPN, L3VPN, etc.)
+--------------------------------------------+
| Device level: IP and System: NETMOD Models |
| (config and oper-state), tunnels, |
| forwarding filters |
+--------------------------------------------+
Figure 6 levels of Yang modules
5.2.1.1.2. I2NSF Gap analysis
The gap is that none of the current work on these filters considers
all the variations of data necessary to do IPS/IDS, web-filters,
stateful flow-based filtering, security-based deep packet inspection,
or pattern matching with re-mediation. The I2RS Filter-Based RIB
work is the closest associated work, but the focus has not been on
IDS/IPS, web-filters, security-based deep packet inspection, or
pattern matching with re-mediation.
The I2RS Working group (I2RS WG) is focused on the routing system so
security expertise for these IDP/IPS, Web-filter, security-based
deep-packet inspection has not been targeted for this WG.
Another gap is there is no capability registry (an IANA registry)
that identifies the characteristics and behaviours of NSFs in vendor-
neutral vocabulary without requiring the NSFs to be standardized.
What I2NSF can use from NETCONF/RESTCONF and I2RS
I2NSF should consider using NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol and the I2RS
proposed enhancement to the NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol.
5.2.1.2. Middle-box Filters
5.2.1.2.1. Midcom
Midcom Summary: MIDCOM developed the protocols for applications to
communicate with middle boxes. However, MIDCOM have not used by the
industry for a long time. This is because there was a lot of IPR
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
encumbered technology and IPR was likely a bigger problem for IETF
than it is today. MIDCOM is not specific to SIP. It was very much
oriented to NAT/FW devices. SIP was just one application that needed
the functionality. MIDCOM is reservation-oriented and there was an
expectation that the primary deployment environment would be VoIP and
real-time conferencing, including SIP, H.323, and other reservation-
oriented protocols. There was an assumption that there would be some
authoritative service that would have a view into endpoint sessions
and be able to authorize (or not) resource allocation requests. In
other word, there's a trust model there that may not be applicable to
endpoint-driven requests without some sort of trusted authorization
mechanisms/tools. Therefore, there is a specific information model
applied to security devices, and security device requests, that was
developed in the context of an SNMP MIB. There is also a two-stage
reservation model, which was specified in order to allow better
resource management.
Why I2NSF is different than Midcom
MIDCOM is different than I2NSF because its SNMP scheme doesn't work
with the virtual network security functions (vNSF) management.
MidCom RFCs:
[RFC3303] - Midcom architecture
[RFC5189] - Midcom Protocol Semantics
[RFC3304] - Midcom protocol requirements
5.2.1.3. Security Work
5.2.1.3.1. Overview
Today's NSFs in security devices can handle flow-based security by
providing treatment to packets/flows, such as IPS/IDS, Web filtering,
flow filtering, deep packet inspection, or pattern matching and re-
mediation. These flow-based security devices are managed and
provisioned by network management systems.
No standardized set of interoperable interfaces control and manage
the NSFs so that a central management system can be used across
security devices from multiple Vendors. I2NSF work plan is to
standardize a set of interfaces by which control and management of
NSFs may be invoked, operated, and monitored by:
creating an information model that defines concepts required for
standardizing the control and monitoring of NSFs, and from the
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
information model create data models. (The information model will
be used to get early agreement on key technical points.)
creating a capability registry (at IANA) that enables the
characteristics and behavior of NSFs to be specified using a
vendor-neutral vocabulary without requiring the NSFs themselves to
be standardized.
define the requirements for an I2NSF protocol to pass this
traffic. (Hopefully re-using existing protocols.)
The flow-filtering configuration and management must fit into the
existing security area's work plan. This section considers how the
I2NSF fits into the security area work under way in the SACM
(security automation and control), DOTS (DDoS Open Threat
Signalling), and MILE (Management Incident Lightweight Exchange).
5.2.1.3.2. Security Work and Filters
In the proposed I2NSF work plan, the I2NSF security network
management system controls many NSF nodes via the I2NSF Agent. This
control of data flows is similar to the COPS example in section
5.7.4.
+------------+
| I2NSF |
| Client |
| |
| security |
| NMS system |
+------------+
+-----+ / \ +-----+
|I2NSF|--/ \---|I2NSF|
|Agent| |Agent|
| | | |
| NSF | | NSF |
--| ----|------------|-----|-----
+-----+ data flow +-----+
Figure 7
The other security protocols work to interact within the network to
provide additional information in the following way:
o SACM [I-D.ietf-sacm-architecture] describes an architecture which
tries to determine if the end-point security policies and the
reality (denoted as security posture) align.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology] defines posture as the configuration
and/or status of hardware or software on an endpoint as it
pertains to an organization's security policy. Filters can be
considered on the configuration or status pieces that needs to be
monitored.
o DOTS (DDoS Open Threat Signalling) - is working on coordinating
the mitigation of DDoS attacks. A part of DDoS attach mitigation
is to provide lists of addresses to be filtered via IP header
filters.
o MILE (Managed Incident LIghtweight Exchange) - is working on
creating a standardized format for incident and indicator reports,
and creating a protocol to transport this information. The
incident information MILE collects may cause changes in data-flow
filters on one or more NSFs.
5.2.1.3.3. I2NSF interaction
The network management system that the I2NSF client resides on may
interact with other clients or agents developed for the work ongoing
in the SACM, DOTS, and MILES working groups. This section describes
how the addition of I2NSF's ability to control and monitor NSF
devices is compatible and synergistic with these existing efforts.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
+----------+ +------+
+--------+ | security |====| DOTS |
|SACNM | | NMS | |client|---+
|consumer| |..........|\ +------+ |
+--------+==|SACM *1 | \ |
+----|repository| \ |
| |..........| +-------+ |
| | I2NSF | |MILES | |
+------|-+ | client | |client | |
|SACM | +----------+ +-----:-+ |
|Info. | / \ : |
|provider| / \ : |
+--------+ / \ : |
+-----+ / \ +-----+ : |
|I2NSF|--/ \---|I2NSF| : |
| | | | : |
| | |MILES|.: |
| | |Agent| |
| | |DOTS | |
| | |Agent|-------+
--| ----|----------------|-----|-----
+-----+ data flow +-----+
*1 - this is the SACM Controller (CR) with
its broker/proxy/repository show as
described in the SACM architecture.
Figure 8
Figure 8 provides a diagram of a system the I2NSF, SACM, DOTS and
MILES client-agent or consumer-broker-provider are deployed together.
The following are possible positive interactions these scenario might
have:
o An security network management system (NMS) can contain a SACM
repository and be connected to SACM information provider and a
SACM consumer. The I2NSF may provide one of the ways to change
the forwarding filters.
o The security NMS may also be connected to DOTS DDoS clients
managing the information and configuring the rules. The I2NSF may
provide one of the ways to change forwarding filters.
o The MILES client on a security network management system talking
to the MILES agent on the node may react to the incidents by using
I2NSF to set filters. DOTS creates black-lists, but does not have
a complete set of filters.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
5.2.1.3.4. Benefits from the Interaction
I2NSF's ability to provide a common interoperable and vendor neutral
interface may allow the security NMS to use a single change to change
filters. SACM provides an information model to describe end-points,
but does not link this directly to filters.
DOTS creates black-lists based on source and destination IP address,
transport port number, protocol ID, and traffic rate. Like NETMOD's,
ACLS are not sufficient for all filters or control desired by the NSF
boxes.
The incident data captured by MILES will not have enough filter
information to provide NSF devices with general services. The I2NSF
will be able to handle the MILE incident data and create alerts or
reports for other security systems.
5.3. ETSI NFV
5.3.1. ETSI Overview
Network Function Virtualization (NFV) provides the service providers
with flexibility, cost effective and agility to offer their services
to customers. One such service is the network security function
which guards the exterior of a service provider or its customers.
The flexibility and agility of NFV encourages service providers to
provide different products to address business trends in their market
to provide better service offerings to their end user. A traditional
product such as the network security function (NSF) may be broken
into multiple virtual devices each hosted from another vendor. In
the past, network security devices may have been single sourced from
a small set of vendors - but in the NFV version of NSF devices, this
reduced set of sources will not provide a competitive edge. Due to
this market shift, the network security device vendors are realizing
that the proprietary provisioning protocols and formats of data may
be a liability. Out of the NFV work has arisen a desire for a single
interoperable network security device provisioning and control
protocol.
The I2NSF will be deployed along networks using other security and
NFV technology. As section 3 described, the NFV NSF security is
deployed along side other security functions (AAA, SACM, DOTS, and
MILE devices) or deep-packet-inspection. The ETSI Network Functions
Virtualization: NFV security: Security and Trust guidance document
(ETSI NFV SEC 003 1.1.1 (2014-12)) indicates that multiple
administrative domains will deployed in carrier networks. One
example of these multiple domains is hosting of multiple tenant
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
domains (telecom service providers) on a single infrastructure domain
(infrastructure service) as figure 9 shows. The ETSI Inter inter-
VNFM document (aka Ve-Vnfn) between the element management system and
the Virtual network function is the equivalent of the interface
between the I2NSF client on a management system and the I2NSF agent
on the network security feature VNF.
....................
+--: OSS/BSS :
| ....................
|
| +-------------------------+
| | |
| | ........ ........ |
| | : EMS1 : : EMS : | ETSI inter-VNFM
| | ....||... ...||... | (Ve-Vnfn)
| | || || ==========I2NSF interface
| | ....||... ...||... |
| | : VNF1 : : VNF1 : | Tenant domain
| | ....||... ...||... |
''''''''||'''''''''||''''''''''
| | ....||..... ...||...... | infrastructure
| | :virtual : :virtual : | domain
| | :computing: :computing: | with virtual
| | ........... ........... | network
| | +=====================+ ---------
| | | virtualization layer| |
| | +=====================+ |
| | ........... .......... .......... |
|====:computing: :storage : :network : |
| :hardware : :hardware: :hardware: |
| ........... .......... .......... |
| hardware resources |
+-----------------------------------+
Figure 9
The ETSI proof of concept work has worked on the following security
proof of concepts:
o #16 - NFVIaas with Secure, SDN controlled WAN Gateway,
5.3.2. I2NSF Gap Analysis
The I2NSF will be deployed on top of virtual computing linked
together by virtual routers configured by NETCONF/RESTCONF or I2RS
which provision and monitoring the L1, L2, l3 and service pathways
through the network.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
In the NFV-related productions, the current architecture does not
have a protocol to maintain an interoperability provisioning from
I2NSF client to I2NSF agent. The result is that service providers
have to manage the interoperability using private protocols. In
response to this problem, the device manufacturers and the service
providers have begun to discuss an I2NSF protocol for interoperable
passing of provisioning and filter in formation.
Open source work (such as OPNFV) provides a common code base for
providers to start their NFV work from. However, this code base
faces the same problem. There is no defacto standard protocol.
5.4. OPNFV
The OPNFV (www.opnfv.org) is a carrier-grade integrated, open source
platform focused on accelerating the introduction of new Network
Function Virtualization (NFV) products and service. The OPNFV Moon
project is focused on adding the security interface for a network
management system within the Tenant NFVs and the infrastructure NFVs
(as shown in figure 4). This section provides an overview of the
OPNFV Moon project and a gap analysis between I2NSF and the OPNFV
Moon Project.
5.4.1. OPNFV Moon Project
The OPNFV moon project (https://wiki.opnfv.org) is a security
management system. NFV uses cloud computing technologies to
virtualize the resources and automate the control. The Moon project
is working on a security manager for the Cloud computing
infrastructure (https://wiki.opnfv.org/moon). The Moon project
proposes to provision a set of different cloud resources/services for
VNFs (Virtualized Network Functions) while managing the isolation of
VNS, protection of VNFs, and monitoring of VNS. Moon is creating a
security management system for OPNFV with security managers to
protect different layers of the NFV infrastructure. The Moon project
is choosing various security project mechanisms "a la cart" to
enforcement related security managers. A security management system
integrates mechanisms of different security aspects. This project
will first propose a security manager that specifies users' security
requirements. It will also enforce the security managers through
various mechanisms like authorization for access control, firewall
for networking, isolation for storage, logging for tractability, etc.
The Moon security manager operates a VNF security manager at the ETSI
VeVnfm level where the I2NSF protocol is targeted as figure 10 shows.
Figure 10 also shows how the OPNFV VNF Security project mixes the
I2NSF level with the device level.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
The Moon project lists the following gaps in OpenStack:
o No centralized control for compute, storage, and networking. Open
Stack uses Nova for computing and Swift for software. Each system
has a configuration file and its own security policy. This lacks
the synchronization mechanism to build a complete secure
configuration for OPNF.
o No dynamic control so that if a user obtains the token, the is no
way to obtain control over the user.
o No customization or flexibility to allow integration into
different vendors,
o No fine grain authorization at user level. Authorization is only
at the API
Moon addresses these issues adding authorization, logging, IDS,
enforcement of network policy, and storage protection. Moon is based
on OpenStack Keystone.
Deliverable time frame: 2S 2015
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
....................
+--: OSS/BSS :
| ....................
|
| +-------------------------+
| | |
| | ........ ........ |
| | : EMS1 : : EMS : | ETSI inter-VNFM
| | ....||... ...||... | (Ve-Vnfn)
| | || || ==========I2NSF interface
| | ....||... ...||... | Moon VNF === Moon VNF
| | : : : : | Security Security MGR
| | : VNF1 : : VNF1 : |
| | ....||... ...||... | Tenant domain
''''''''||'''''''''||''''''''''
| | ....||..... ...||...... | infrastructure
| | :virtual : :virtual : | domain
| | :computing: :computing: | with virtual
| | ........... ........... | network
| | +=====================+ |--------
| | | virtualization layer| |
| | +=====================+
| | =============Moon VNF ===Moon VI
| | security project Security MGR
| | ........... .......... .......... |
|====:computing: :storage : :network : |
| :hardware : :hardware: :hardware: |
| ........... .......... .......... |
| hardware resources |
+-----------------------------------+
Figure 10
5.4.2. Gap Analysis for OPNFV Moon Project
OpenStack congress does not provide vendor independent systems.
5.5. OpenStack Security Firewall
OpenStack has advanced features of: a) API for managing security
groups (http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/
section_securitygroups.html) and b) firewalls as a service
(http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/
fwaas_api_abstractions.html).
This section provides an overview of this open stack work, and a gap
analysis of how I2NSF provides additional functions
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
5.5.1. Overview of API for Security Group
The security group with the security group rules provides ingress and
egress traffic filters based on port. The default group drops all
ingress traffic and allows all egress traffic. The groups with
additional filters are added to change this behaviour. To utilize
the security groups, the networking plug-in for Open Stack must
implement the security group API. The following plug-ins in
OpenSTsack currently implement this security: ML2, Open vSwitch,
Linux Bridge, NEC, and VMware NSX. In addition, the correct firewall
driver must be added to make this functional.
5.5.2. Overview of Firewalls as a Service
Firewall as a service is an early release of an API that allows early
adopters to test network implementations. It contains APIs with
parameters for firewall rules, firewall policies, and firewall
identifiers. The firewall rules include the following information:
o identification of rule (id, name, description)
o identification tenant rule associated with,
o links to installed firewall policy,
o IP protocol (tcp, udp, icmp, none)
o source and destination IP address
o source and destination port
o action: allow or deny traffic
o status: position and enable/disabled
The firewall policies include the following information:
o identification of the policy (id, name, description),
o identification of tenant associated with,
o ordered list of firewall rules,
o indication if policy can be seen by tenants other than owner, and
o indication if firewall rules have been audited.
The firewall table provides the following information:
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
o identification of firewall (id, name, description),
o tenant associated with this firewall,
o administrative state (up/down),
o status (active, down, pending create, pending delete, pending
update, pending error)
o firewall policy ID this firewall is associated with
5.5.3. I2NSF Gap analysis
The OpenStack work is preliminary (security groups and firewall as a
service). This work does not allow any of the existing network
security vendors provide a management interface. Security devices
take time to be tested for functionality and their detection of
security issues. The OpenStack work provides an interesting simple
set of filters, and may in the future provide some virtual filter
service. However, at this time this open source work does not
address the single management interfaces for a variety of security
devices.
I2NSF is proposing rules that will include Event-Condition-matches
(ECA) with the following matches
packet based matches on L2, L3, and L4 headers and/or specific
addresses within these headers,
context based matches on schedule state and schedule, [Editor:
Need more details here.]
The I2NSF is proposing action for these ECA policies of:
basic actions of deny, permit, and mirror,
advanced actions of: IPS signature filtering and URL filtering.
5.6. CSA Secure Cloud
5.6.1. CSA Overview
The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA)(www.cloudsecurityaliance.org)
defined security as a service (SaaS) in their Security as a Service
working group (SaaS WG) during 2010-2012. The CSA SaaS group defined
ten categories of network security
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_V1_0.pdf) and provides implementation guidance for each of
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
these ten categories This section provides an overview of the CSA
SaaS working groups documentation and a Gap analysis for I2NSF
5.6.1.1. CSA Security as a Service(SaaS)
The CSA SaaS working group defined the following ten categories, and
provided implementation guidance on these categories:
1. Identity Access Management (IAM)
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_1_IAM_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
2. Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_2_DLP_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
3. Web Security (web)
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_3_Web_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
4. Email Security (email)
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_4_Email_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
5. Security Assessments
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_5_Security_Assessments_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
6. Intrusion Management
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_6_Intrusion_Management_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
7. Security information and Event Management
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_7_SIEM_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
8. Encryption
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_8_Encryption_Implementation_Guidance.pdf),
9. Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BCDR)
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_9_BCDR_Implementation_Guidance.pdf), and
10. Network Security
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_10_Network_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf).
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
The sections below give an overview these implementation guidances
5.6.1.2. Identity Access Management (IAM)
document:
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_1_IAM_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
The identity management systems include the following services:
o Centralized Directory Services,
o Access Management Services,
o Identity Management Services,
o Identity Federation Services,
o Role-Based Access Control Services,
o User Access Certification Services,
o Privileged User and Access Management,
o Separation of Duties Services, and
o Identity and Access Reporting Services.
The IAM device communications with the security management system
that controls the filtering of data. The CSA SaaS IAM specification
states that interoperability between IAM devices and secure access
network management systems is a a problem. This 2012 implementation
report confirms there is a gap with I2NSF
+------------+ +--------+
| IAM device | ---- SLA ------------| secure |
| | Access review | access |
| | security events | NMS |
| | access tracing | |
+---||-------+ Audit report +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 11
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
5.6.1.3. Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Document:
(https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_2_DLP_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
The data loss prevention (DLP)services must address:
o origination verification,
o integrity of data,
o confidentiality and access control,
o accountability,
o avoiding false positives on detection, and
o privacy concerns.
The CSA SaaS DLP device communications require that it have the
enforcement capabilities to do the following:
alert and log data loss,
delete data on system or passing through,
filter out (block/quarantine) data,
reroute data,
encrypt data
+------------+ +--------+
| DLP device | ---- SLA ------------| secure |
| | Alert and log | access |
| | delete data | NMS |
| | filter/reroute | |
+---||-------+ encrypt data +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 12
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
5.6.1.4. Web security(Web))
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_3_Web_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The web security services must address:
o Web 2.0/Social Media controls,
o Malware and Anti-Virus controls,
o Data Loss Prevention controls (over Web-based services like Gmail
or Box.net),
o XSS, JavaScript and other web specific attack controls
o Web URL Filtering,
o Policy control and administrative management,
o Bandwidth management and quality of service (QoS) capability, and
o Monitoring of SSL enabled traffic.
The CSA SaaS Web services device communications require that it have
the enforcement capabilities to do the following:
alert and log malware or anti-virus data patterns,
delete data (malware and virus) passing through systems,
filter out (block/quarantine) data,
filter Web URLs,
interact with policy and network management systems,
control bandwidth and QoS of traffic, and
monitor encrypted (SSL enabled) traffic,
All of these features either require the I2NSF standardized I2NSF
client to I2NSF agent to provide multi-vendor interoperability.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
+------------+ +--------+
|Web security| ---- SLA ------------| secure |
| | Alert and log | access |
| | delete data | NMS |
| | filter/reroute data | |
| | ensure bandwdith/QOS | |
| | monitor encrypted | |
| | data | |
+---||-------+ encrypt data +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 13
5.6.1.5. Email Security (email))
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_4_Email_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA Document recommends that email security services must
address:
o Common electronic mail components,
o Electronic mail architecture protection,
o Common electronic mail threats,
o Peer authentication,
o Electronic mail message standards,
o Electronic mail encryption and digital signature,
o Electronic mail content inspection and filtering,
o Securing mail clients, and
o Electronic mail data protection and availability assurance
techniques
The CSA SaaS Email security services requires that it have the
enforcement capabilities to do the following:
provide the malware and spam detection and removal,
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
alert and provide rapid response to email threats,
identify email users and secure remote access to email,
do on-demand provisioning of email services,
filter out (block/quarantine) email data,
know where the email traffic or data is residing (to to regulatory
issues), and
be able to monitor encrypted email,
be able to encrypt email,
be able to retain email records (while abiding with privacy
concerns), and
interact with policy and network management systems.
All of these features require the I2NSF standardized I2NSF client to
I2NSF agent to provide multi-vendor interoperability.
+------------+ +--------+
| Email | ---- SLA ------------| secure |
| security | alert/log malware | access |
| | alert/log email spam | NMS |
| | filter/reroute data | |
| | ensure bandwidth/QOS | |
| | monitor encrypted | |
| | data | |
+---||-------+ encrypt data +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 14
5.6.1.6. Security Assessment
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_5_Security_Assessments_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA SaaS Security assessment indicates that assessments need to
be done on the following devices:
o hypervisor infrastructure,
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
o network security compliance systems,
o Servers and workstations,
o applications,
o network vulnerabilities systems,
o internal auditor and intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/
IPS), and
o web application systems.
All of these features require the I2NSF working group standardize the
way to pass these assessments to and from the I2NSF client on the
I2NSF management system and the I2NSF Agent.
5.6.1.7. Intrusion Detection
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_6_Intrusion_Management_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
The CSA SaaS Intrusion detection management includes intrusion
detection through: devices:
o Network traffic inspection, behavioural analysis, and flow
analysis,
o Operating System, Virtualization Layer, and Host Process Events
monitoring,
o monitoring of Application Layer Events, and
o Correlation Techniques, and other Distributed and Cloud-Based
Capabilities
Intrusion response includes both:
o Automatic, Manual, or Hybrid Mechanisms,
o Technical, Operational, and Process Mechanisms.
The CSA SaaS recommends the intrusion security management systems
include provisioning and monitoring of all of these types of
intrusion detection (IDS) or intrusion protection devices. The
management of these systems requires also requires:
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
Central reporting of events and alerts,
administrator notification of intrusions,
Mapping of alerts to Cloud-Layer Tenancy,
Cloud sourcing information to prevent false positives in
detection, and
allowing for redirection of traffic to allow remote storage or
transmission to prevent local evasion.
All of these features require the I2NSF standardized I2NSF client to
I2NSF agent to provide multi-vendor interoperability.
+------------+ +--------+
| IDS/IPS | ---- Info ----------| secure |
| security | alert/log intrusion | access |
| | notify administrator | NMS |
| | Map alerts to Tenant | |
| |filter/reroute traffic| |
| | remote data storage | |
+---||-------+ +---||---+
|| ||
|| +------------------+ ||
========== |Filter enforcement|=====||
+------------------+
Figure 15
5.6.1.8. Security Information and Event Management(SEIM)
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_7_SIEM_Implementation_Guidance.pdf)
The Security Information and Event Management (SEIM) receives data
from a wide range of security systems such as Identity management
systems (IAM), data loss prevention (DLP), web security (Web), email
security (email), intrusion detection/prevision (IDS/IPS)),
encryption, disaster recovery, and network security. The SEIM
combines this data into a single streams. All the requirements for
data to/from these systems are replicated in these systems needs to
give a report to the SIEM system.
A SIEM system would be prime candidate to have a I2NSF client that
gathers data from an I2NSF Agent associated with these various types
of security systems. The CSA SaaS SIEM functionality document
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
suggests that one concern is to have standards that allow timely
recording and sharing of data. I2NSF can provide this.
5.6.1.9. Encryption
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_8_Encryption_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA SaaS Encryption implementation guidance document considers
how one implements and manages the following security systems:
key management systems (KMS), control of keys, and key life cycle;
Shared Secret encryption (Symmetric ciphers),
No-Secret or Public Key Encryption (asymmetric ciphers),
hashing algorithms,
Digital Signature Algorithms,
Key Establishment Schemes,
Protection of Cryptographic Key Material (FIPS 140-2; 140-3),
Interoperability of Encryption Systems, Key Conferencing, Key
Escrow Systems, and others
application of Encryption for Data at rest, data in transit, and
data in use;
PKI (including certificate revocation "CRL");
Future application of such technologies as Homomorphic encryption,
Quantum Cryptography, Identitybased Encryption, and others;
Crypto-system Integrity (How bad implementations can under mind a
crypto-system), and
Cryptographic Security Standards and Guidelines
The wide variety of encryption services require the security
management systems be able to provision, monitor, and control the
systems that are being used to encrypt data. This document indicates
in the implementation sections that the standardization of interfaces
to/from management systems are key to good key management systems,
encryption systems, and crypto-systems.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
5.6.1.10. Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_9_BCDR_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA SaaS Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)
implementation guidance document considers the systems that implement
the the contingency plans and measures designed and implemented to
ensure operational resiliency in the event of any service
interruptions. BC/DR systems includes:
Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery BC/DR as a service,
including categories such as complete Disaster Recovery as a
Service (DRaaS), and subsets such as file recovery, backup and
archive,
Storage as a Service including object, volume, or block storage;
old Site, Warm Site, Hot Site backup plans;
IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service),
and SaaS (Software as a Service);
Insurance (and insurance reporting programs)
Business Partner Agents (business associate agreements);
System Replication (for high availability);
Fail-back to Live Systems mechanisms and management;
Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO);
Encryption (data at rest [DAR], data in motion [DIM], field
level);
Realm-based Access Control;
Service-level Agreements (SLA); and
ISO/IEC 24762:2008, BS25999, ISO 27031, and FINRA Rule 4370
These BC/DR systems must handle data backup and recovery, server
backup/recovery, and data center (virtual/physical) backup and
recovery. Recovery as a service (RaaS) means that the BC/DR services
are being handled by management systems outside the enterprise.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
The wide variety of BC/DR requires the security management systems to
be able to communicate provisioning, monitor, and control those
systems that are being used to back-up and restore data. An
interoperable protocol that allows provision and control of data
center's data, servers, and data center management devices devices is
extremely important to this application. Recovery as a Service
(SaaS) indicates that these services need to be able to be remotely
management.
The CSA SaaS BC/BR documents indicate how important a standardized
I2NSF protocol is.
5.6.1.11. Network Security Devices
Document:
https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/secaas/
SecaaS_Cat_10_Network_Security_Implementation_Guidance.pdf
The CSA SaaS Network Security implementation recommendation includes
advice on:
How to segment networks,
Network security controls,
Controlling ingress and egress controls such as Firewalls
(Stateful), Content Inspection and Control (Network-based),
Intrusion Detection System/Intrusion Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS),
and Web Application Firewalls,
Secure routing and time,
Denial of Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS)
Protection/Mitigation,
Virtual Private Network (VPN) with Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Connectivity (over SSL), Internet Protocol Security (IPsec)
VPNs, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), and Ethernet Virtual
Private Line (EVPL),
Threat Management,
Forensic Support, and
Privileged User/Use Monitoring.
These network security systems require provisioning, monitoring, and
the ability for the security management system to subscribe to
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
receive logs, snapshots of capture data, and time synchronization.
This document states the following:
"It is critical to understand what monitoring APIs are available
from the CSP, and if they match risk and compliance requirements",
"Network security auditors are challenged by the need to track a
server and its identity from creation to deletion. Audit tracking
is challenging in even the most mature cloud environments, but the
challenges are greatly complicated by cloud server sprawl, the
situation where the number of cloud servers being created is
growing more quickly than a cloud environments ability to manage
them."
A valid threat vector for cloud is the API access. Since a
majority of CSPs today support public API interfaces available
within their networks and likely over the Internet."
The CSA SaaS network security indicates that the I2NSF must be secure
so that the I2NSF Client-Agent protocol does not become a valid
threat vector. In additions, the need for the management protocol
like I2NSF is critical in the sprawl of Cloud environment.
5.6.2. I2NSF Gap Analysis
The CSA Security as a Service (SaaS) document show clearly that there
is a gap between the ability of the CSA SaaS devices to have a vendor
neutral, inoperable protocol that allow the multiple of network
security devices to communicate passing provisioning and
informational data. Each of the 10 implementation agreements points
to this as a shortage. The I2NSF yang models and protocol is needed
according to the CSA SaaS documents.
5.7. In-depth Review of IETF protocols
5.7.1. NETCONF and RESTCONF
The IETF NETCONF working group has developed the basics of the
NETCONF protocol focusing on secure configuration and querying
operational state. The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] may be run over
TLS [RFC6639] or SSH ([RFC6242]. NETCONF can be expanded to defaults
[RFC6243], handling events ([RFC5277] and basic notification
[RFC6470], and filtering writes/reads based on network access control
models (NACM, [RFC6536]). The NETCONF configuration must be
committed to a configuration data store (denoted as config=TRUE).
Yang models identify nodes within a configuration data store or an
operational data store using a XPath expression (document root ---to
--- target source). NETCONF uses an RPC model and provides protocol
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
for handling configs (get-config, edit-config, copy-config, delete-
config, lock, unlock, get) and sessions (close-session, kill-
session). The NETCONF Working Group has developed RESTCONF, which is
an HTTP-based protocol that provides a programmatic interface for
accessing data defined in YANG, using the datastores defined in
NETCONF.
RESTCONF supports "two edit condition detections" - time stamp and
entity tag. RESTCONF uses a URI encoded path expressions. RESTCONF
provides operations to get remote servers options (OPTIONS), retrieve
data headers (HEAD), get data (GET), create resource/invoke operation
(POST), patch data (PATCH), delete resource (DELETE), or query.
RFCs for NETCONF
o NETCONF [RFC6242]
o NETCONF monitoring [RFC6022]
o NETCONF over SSH [RFC6242]
o NETCONF over TLS [RFC5539]
o NETCONF system notification> [RFC6470]
o NETCONF access-control (NACM) [RFC6536]
o RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
o NETCONF-RESTCONF call home [I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home]
o RESTCONF collection protocol
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-collection]
o NETCONF Zero Touch Provisioning [I-D.ietf-netconf-zerotouch]
5.7.2. I2RS Protocol
Based on input from the NETCONF working group, the I2RS working group
decided to re-use the NETCONF or RESTCONF protocols and specify
additions to these protocols rather than create yet another protocol
(YAP).
The required extensions for the I2RS protocol are in the following
drafts:
o Ephemeral state [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state],
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
o Publication-Subscription notifications
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements],
o Traceability [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability],
o Security requirements [I-D.hares-i2rs-auth-trans]
At this time, NETCONF and RESTCONF cannot handle the ephemeral data
store proposed by I2RS, the publication and subscription
requirements, the traceability, or the security requirements for the
transport protocol and message integrity.
5.7.3. NETMOD Yang modules
NETMOD developed initial Yang models for interfaces [RFC7223]), IP
address ([RFC7277]), IPv6 Router advertisement ([RFC7277]), IP
Systems ([RFC7317]) with system ID, system time management, DNS
resolver, Radius client, SSH, syslog
([I-D.ietf-netmod-syslog-model]), ACLS ([I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]),
and core routing blocks ([I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg] The routing
working group (rtgwg) has begun to examine policy for routing and
tunnels.
Protocol specific Working groups have developed yang models for ISIS
([I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]), OSPF ([I-D.ietf-ospf-yang]), and BGP
( merge of [I-D.shaikh-idr-bgp-model] and [I-D.zhdankin-idr-bgp-cfg]
with the bgp policy proposed multiple Working groups (idr and
rtgwg)). BGP Services yang models have been proposed for PPB EVPN
([I-D.tsingh-bess-pbb-evpn-yang-cfg]), EVPN
([I-D.zhuang-bess-evpn-yang]), L3VPN ([I-D.zhuang-bess-l3vpn-yang]),
and multicast MPLS/BGP IP VPNs ([I-D.liu-bess-mvpn-yang]).
5.7.4. COPS
One early focus on flow filtering based on policy enforcement of
traffic entering a network is the 1990s COPS [RFC2748] design (PEP
and PDP) as shown in figure 16. The Policy decision point kept
network-wide policy (E.g. ACLs) and sent it to Policy enforcements
who then would control what data flows between the two These decision
points controlled data flow from PEP to PEP. [RFC3084] describes
COPS use for policy provisioning.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
PDP
+-----+ / \ +-----+
|PEP1 |--/ \---|PEP2 |
| | ACL/policy | |
| | | |
--| ----|------------|-----|-----
+-----+ data flow +-----+
Figure 16
COPS had a design of Policy Enforcement Points (PEP), and policy
Decision Points (PDP) as shown in figure 16. These decision points
controlled flow from PEP to PEP.
Why COPS is no longer used
Security in the network in 2015 uses specific devices (IDS/IPS, NAT
firewall, etc) with specific policies and profiles for each types of
device. No common protocol or policy format exists between the
policy manager (PDP) and security enforcement points.
COPs RFCs: [RFC4261], [RFC2940], , [RFC3084], , [RFC3483]
Why I2NSF is different COPS
COPS was a protocol for policy related to Quality of Service (QoS)
and signalling protocols (e.g. RSVP) (security, flow, and others).
I2NSF creates a common protocol between security policy decision
points (SPDP) and security enforcement points (SEP). Today's
security devices currently only use proprietary protocols.
Manufacturers would like a security specific policy enforcement
protocol rather than a generic policy protocol.
5.7.5. PCP
As indicated by the name, the Port Control Protocol (PCP) enables an
IPv4 or IPv6 host to flexibly manage the IP address and port mapping
information on Network Address Translators (NATs) or firewalls, to
facilitate communication with remote hosts.
PCP RFCs:
[RFC6887]
[RFC7225]
[I-D.ietf-pcp-authentication]
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[I-D.ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives]
[I-D.ietf-pcp-proxy]
Why is I2NSF different from PCP:
Here are some aspects that I2NSF is different from PCP:
o PCP only supports the management of port and address information
rather than any other security functions
o Cover the proxy, firewall and NAT box proposals in I2NSF
5.7.6. NSIS - Next steps in Signalling
NSIS is for standardizing an IP signalling protocol (RSVP) along data
path for end points to request its unique QoS characteristics, unique
FW policies or NAT needs (RFC5973) that are different from the FW/NAT
original setting. The requests are communicated directly to the FW/
NAT devices. NSIS is like east-west protocols that require all
involved devices to fully comply to make it work.
NSIS is path-coupled, it is possible to message every participating
device along a path without having to know its location, or its
location relative to other devices (this is particularly a pressing
issue when you've got one or more NATs present in the network, or
when trying to locate appropriate tunnel endpoints).
A diagram should be added here showing I2NSF and NSIS
Why I2NSF is different than NSIS:
o The I2NSF requests from clients do not go directly to network
security devices, but instead to controller or orchestrator that
can translate the application/user oriented policies to the
involved devices in the interface that they support.
o The I2NSF request does not require all network functions in a path
to comply, but it is a protocol between the I2NSF client and the
I2NSF Agent in the controller and orchestrator
o I2NSF defines client (applications) oriented descriptors
(profiles, or attributes) to request/negotiate/validate the
network security functions that are not on the local premises.
Why we belief I2NSF has a higher chance to be deployed than NSIS:
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
o Open Stack already has a proof-of-concept/preliminary
implementation, but the specification is not complete. IETF can
play an active role to make the specification for I2NSF is
complete. IETF can complete and extend the OpenStack
implementation to provide an interoperable specification that can
meet the needs and requirements of operators and is workable for
suppliers of the technology. The combination of a carefully
designed interoperable IETF specification with an open-source code
development Open Stack will leverage the strengths of the two
communities, and expand the informal ties between the two groups.
A software development cycle has the following components:
architecture, design specification, coding, and interoperability
testing. The IETF can take ownership of the first two steps, and
provide expertise and a good working atmosphere (in hack-a-thons)
in the last two steps for OpenSTack or other open-source coders.
o IETF has the expertise in security architecture and design for
interoperable protocols that span controllers/routers, middle-
boxes, and security end-systems.
o IETF has a history of working on interoperable protocols or
virtualized network functions (L2VPN, L3VPN) that are deployed by
operators in large scale devices. IETF has a strong momentum to
create virtualized network functions (see SFC WG in routing) to be
deployed in network boxes. [Note: We need to add SACM and others
here].
6. Summarized Requirements
The I2NSF framework should provide a set of standard interfaces that
facilitate:
o Dynamic creation, enablement, disablement, and removal of network
security functions;
o Policy-driven placement of new function instances in the right
administrative domain;
o Attachment of appropriate security and traffic policies to the
function instances
o Management of deployed instances in terms of fault monitoring,
utilization monitoring, event logging, inventory, etc.
Moreover, an I2NSF must support different deployment scenarios:
o Single and multi-tenant environments: The term multi-tenant does
not mean just different companies subscribing to a provider's
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
offering. It can for instance cover administrative domains/
departments within a single firm that require different security
and traffic policies.
o Premise-agnostic: Said network security functions may be deployed
on premises or off premises of an organization.
The I2NSF framework should provide a standard set of interfaces that
enable:
o Translation of security policies into functional tasks. Security
policies may be carried out by one or more security functions.
For example, a security policy may be translated into an IDS/IPS
policy and a firewall policy for a given application type.
o Translation of functional tasks into vendor-specific configuration
sets. For example, a firewall policy needs to be converted to
vendor-specific configurations.
o Retrieval of information such as configuration, utilization,
status, etc. Such information may be used for monitoring,
auditing, troubleshooting purposes. The above functionality
should be available in single- or multi-tenant environments as
well as on-premise or off-premise clouds.
7. IANA Considerations
No IANA considerations exist for this document.
8. Security Considerations
The relationship between different actors define the security level
for the different use cases and must be associated with
administrative domains:
o Closed environments where there is only one administrative network
domain. More permissive access controls and lighter validation
shall be allowed inside the domain because of the protected
environment. Integration with existing identity management
systems is also possible.
o Open environments where some NSFs can be hosted in different
administrative domains, and more restrictive security controls are
required. The interfaces to the NSFs must use trusted channels.
Identity frameworks and federations are common models for
authentication and Authorization. Security controllers will be in
charge of this functionalities.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
Virtualization applied to NSF environment (vNSF) generate several
concerns in security, being one of the most relevant the attestation
of the vNSF by the clients. A holistic analysis has been done in
[NFVSEC].
9. Contributors
I2NSF is a group effort. The following people contributed actively
to the initial use case text: Diego R. Lopez (Telefonica I+D),
Xiaojun Zhuang (China Mobile), Minpeng Qi (China Mobile), Sumandra
Majee (F5), Nic Leymann (Deutsche Telekom), Linda Dunbar (Huawei).
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.dunbar-i2rs-discover-traffic-rules]
Dunbar, L. and S. Hares, "An Information Model for Filter
Rules for Discovery and Traffic for I2RS Filter-Based
RIB", draft-dunbar-i2rs-discover-traffic-rules-00 (work in
progress), March 2015.
[I-D.hares-i2rs-auth-trans]
Hares, S., Migault, D., and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security
Related Requirements", draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-05
(work in progress), August 2015.
[I-D.hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model]
Hares, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and R. White, "An
Information Model for Basic Network Policy and Filter
Rules", draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-00 (work in
progress), July 2015.
[I-D.hares-i2rs-info-model-service-topo]
Hares, S., Wu, W., Wang, Z., and J. You, "An Information
model for service topology", draft-hares-i2rs-info-model-
service-topo-03 (work in progress), January 2015.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-09 (work in
progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state]
Haas, J. and S. Hares, "I2RS Ephemeral State
Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-02 (work in
progress), September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement]
Atlas, A., Nadeau, T., and D. Ward, "Interface to the
Routing System Problem Statement", draft-ietf-i2rs-
problem-statement-06 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Prieto, "Requirements for
Subscription to YANG Datastores", draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-
requirements-03 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model]
Wang, L., Ananthakrishnan, H., Chen, M.,
amit.dass@ericsson.com, a., Kini, S., and N. Bahadur, "A
YANG Data Model for Routing Information Base (RIB)",
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-01 (work in progress),
September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
Bahadur, N., Kini, S., and J. Medved, "Routing Information
Base Info Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-07 (work
in progress), September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability]
Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to
the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-03 (work
in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-usecase-reqs-summary]
Hares, S. and M. Chen, "Summary of I2RS Use Case
Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-usecase-reqs-summary-01
(work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology]
Dong, J. and X. Wei, "A YANG Data Model for Layer-2
Network Topologies", draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-
topology-01 (work in progress), July 2015.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo]
Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Tkacik, T., Bahadur, N.,
and H. Ananthakrishnan, "A Data Model for Network
Topologies", draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-01 (work in
progress), June 2015.
[I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]
Litkowski, S., Yeung, D., Lindem, A., Zhang, J., and L.
Lhotka, "YANG Data Model for ISIS protocol", draft-ietf-
isis-yang-isis-cfg-02 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home]
Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home",
draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-06 (work in progress), May
2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-04 (work in
progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-collection]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Collection Resource", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-
collection-00 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-zerotouch]
Watsen, K., Clarke, J., and M. Abrahamsson, "Zero Touch
Provisioning for NETCONF Call Home (ZeroTouch)", draft-
ietf-netconf-zerotouch-02 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]
Bogdanovic, D., Sreenivasa, K., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
"Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model",
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-02 (work in progress), March
2015.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg]
Lhotka, L. and A. Lindem, "A YANG Data Model for Routing
Management", draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-19 (work in
progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-syslog-model]
Wildes, C. and K. Sreenivasa, "SYSLOG YANG model", draft-
ietf-netmod-syslog-model-03 (work in progress), March
2015.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[I-D.ietf-ospf-yang]
Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, J., Bogdanovic, D., and K.
Sreenivasa, "Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", draft-
ietf-ospf-yang-00 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-authentication]
Wasserman, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and T. Reddy, "Port
Control Protocol (PCP) Authentication Mechanism", draft-
ietf-pcp-authentication-09 (work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives]
Reddy, T., Patil, P., Isomaki, M., and D. Wing,
"Optimizing NAT and Firewall Keepalives Using Port Control
Protocol (PCP)", draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-06
(work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-proxy]
Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and S.
Cheshire, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function",
draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08 (work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-architecture]
Cam-Winget, N., Lorenzin, L., McDonald, I., and l.
loxx@cisco.com, "Secure Automation and Continuous
Monitoring (SACM) Architecture", draft-ietf-sacm-
architecture-03 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]
Waltermire, D., Montville, A., Harrington, D., Cam-Winget,
N., Lu, J., Ford, B., and M. Kaeo, "Terminology for
Security Assessment", draft-ietf-sacm-terminology-06 (work
in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.kini-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model]
Kini, S., Hares, S., Dunbar, L., Ghanwani, A., Krishnan,
R., Bogdanovic, D., Tantsura, J., and R. White, "Filter-
Based RIB Information Model", draft-kini-i2rs-fb-rib-info-
model-01 (work in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.l3vpn-service-yang]
Litkowski, S., Shakir, R., Tomotaki, L., and K. D'Souza,
"YANG Data Model for L3VPN service delivery", draft-l3vpn-
service-yang-00 (work in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.liu-bess-mvpn-yang]
Liu, Y. and F. Guo, "Yang Data Model for Multicast in
MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-00 (work in
progress), April 2015.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[I-D.shaikh-idr-bgp-model]
Shaikh, A., D'Souza, K., Bansal, D., and R. Shakir, "BGP
Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-shaikh-idr-
bgp-model-01 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and C. Chase,
"Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider
Networks", draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model-01 (work in
progress), July 2015.
[I-D.tsingh-bess-pbb-evpn-yang-cfg]
Tiruveedhula, K., Singh, T., Sajassi, A., Kumar, D., and
L. Jalil, "YANG Data Model for PBB EVPN protocol", draft-
tsingh-bess-pbb-evpn-yang-cfg-00 (work in progress), March
2015.
[I-D.zhang-i2rs-l1-topo-yang-model]
Zhang, X., Rao, B., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
Layer 1 Network Topology", draft-zhang-i2rs-l1-topo-yang-
model-01 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.zhdankin-idr-bgp-cfg]
Alex, A., Patel, K., Clemm, A., Hares, S., Jethanandani,
M., and X. Liu, "Yang Data Model for BGP Protocol", draft-
zhdankin-idr-bgp-cfg-00 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.zhuang-bess-evpn-yang]
Zhuang, S. and Z. Li, "Yang Model for Ethernet VPN",
draft-zhuang-bess-evpn-yang-00 (work in progress),
December 2014.
[I-D.zhuang-bess-l3vpn-yang]
Zhuang, S. and Z. Li, "Yang Data Model for BGP/MPLS IP
VPNs", draft-zhuang-bess-l3vpn-yang-00 (work in progress),
December 2014.
[RFC2748] Durham, D., Ed., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzog, S., Rajan,
R., and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
Protocol", RFC 2748, DOI 10.17487/RFC2748, January 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2748>.
[RFC2940] Smith, A., Partain, D., and J. Seligson, "Definitions of
Managed Objects for Common Open Policy Service (COPS)
Protocol Clients", RFC 2940, DOI 10.17487/RFC2940, October
2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2940>.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[RFC3084] Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S., McCloghrie,
K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar, R., and A.
Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)",
RFC 3084, DOI 10.17487/RFC3084, March 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3084>.
[RFC3303] Srisuresh, P., Kuthan, J., Rosenberg, J., Molitor, A., and
A. Rayhan, "Middlebox communication architecture and
framework", RFC 3303, DOI 10.17487/RFC3303, August 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3303>.
[RFC3304] Swale, R., Mart, P., Sijben, P., Brim, S., and M. Shore,
"Middlebox Communications (midcom) Protocol Requirements",
RFC 3304, DOI 10.17487/RFC3304, August 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3304>.
[RFC3483] Rawlins, D., Kulkarni, A., Bokaemper, M., and K. Chan,
"Framework for Policy Usage Feedback for Common Open
Policy Service with Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)",
RFC 3483, DOI 10.17487/RFC3483, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3483>.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3484, February 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3484>.
[RFC4080] Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework",
RFC 4080, DOI 10.17487/RFC4080, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4080>.
[RFC4261] Walker, J. and A. Kulkarni, Ed., "Common Open Policy
Service (COPS) Over Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
RFC 4261, DOI 10.17487/RFC4261, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4261>.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC5189] Stiemerling, M., Quittek, J., and T. Taylor, "Middlebox
Communication (MIDCOM) Protocol Semantics", RFC 5189,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5189, March 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5189>.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[RFC5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
Notifications", RFC 5277, DOI 10.17487/RFC5277, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5277>.
[RFC5539] Badra, M., "NETCONF over Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
RFC 5539, DOI 10.17487/RFC5539, May 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5539>.
[RFC5973] Stiemerling, M., Tschofenig, H., Aoun, C., and E. Davies,
"NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)",
RFC 5973, DOI 10.17487/RFC5973, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5973>.
[RFC6022] Scott, M. and M. Bjorklund, "YANG Module for NETCONF
Monitoring", RFC 6022, DOI 10.17487/RFC6022, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6022>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6243] Bierman, A. and B. Lengyel, "With-defaults Capability for
NETCONF", RFC 6243, DOI 10.17487/RFC6243, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6243>.
[RFC6436] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., and S. Jiang, "Rationale for
Update to the IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6436,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6436, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6436>.
[RFC6470] Bierman, A., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
Base Notifications", RFC 6470, DOI 10.17487/RFC6470,
February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6470>.
[RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.
[RFC6639] King, D., Ed. and M. Venkatesan, Ed., "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-Based Management
Overview", RFC 6639, DOI 10.17487/RFC6639, June 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6639>.
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>.
[RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for
System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7317>.
Authors' Addresses
Susan Hares
Huawei
7453 Hickory Hill
Saline, MI 48176
USA
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Antonio Pastor
Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82
Madrid 28006
Spain
Email: antonio.pastorperales@telefonica.com
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Existing Work Analysis October 2015
Ke Wang
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumenxi Ave,Xicheng District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: wangkeyj@chinamobile.com
Dacheng Zhang
Beijing
China
Email: dacheng.zdc@aliabab-inc.com
Myo Zarny
Goldman Sachs
30 Hudson Street
Jersey City, NJ 07302
USA
Email: myo.zarny@gs.com
Hares, et al. Expires April 20, 2016 [Page 55]