ANIMA M. Behringer, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational B. Carpenter
Expires: September 22, 2016 Univ. of Auckland
T. Eckert
Cisco
L. Ciavaglia
Alcatel Lucent
B. Liu
Huawei Technologies
J. Nobre
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
J. Strassner
Huawei Technologies
March 21, 2016
A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking
draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-01
Abstract
This document describes a reference model for Autonomic Networking.
The goal is to define how the various elements in an autonomic
context work together, to describe their interfaces and relations.
While the document is written as generally as possible, the initial
solutions are limited to the chartered scope of the WG.
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 September 22, 2016.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Network View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Autonomic Network Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. The Autonomic Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Signaling Between Autonomic Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.7. Intent Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Functional Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security and Trust Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Public Key Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Domain Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. The MASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Sub-Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. Cross-Domain Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Autonomic Service Agents (ASA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. General Description of an ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Specific ASAs for the Enrolment Process . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.1. The Enrolment ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.2. The Enrolment Proxy ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.3. The Registrar ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Management and Programmability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. How an AN Network Is Managed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Intent (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.3. Aggregated Reporting (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.4. Feedback Loops to NOC(*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.5. Control Loops (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
8.6. APIs (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.7. Data Model (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Coordination Between Autonomic Functions (*) . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. The Coordination Problem (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. A Coordination Functional Block (*) . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Threat Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
The document "Autonomic Networking - Definitions and Design Goals"
[RFC7575] explains the fundamental concepts behind Autonomic
Networking, and defines the relevant terms in this space. In section
5 it describes a high level reference model. This document defines
this reference model with more detail, to allow for functional and
protocol specifications to be developed in an architecturally
consistent, non-overlapping manner. While the document is written as
generally as possible, the initial solutions are limited to the
chartered scope of the WG.
As discussed in [RFC7575], the goal of this work is not to focus
exclusively on fully autonomic nodes or networks. In reality, most
networks will run with some autonomic functions, while the rest of
the network is traditionally managed. This reference model allows
for this hybrid approach.
This is a living document and will evolve with the technical
solutions developed in the ANIMA WG. Sections marked with (*) do not
represent current charter items. While this document must give a
long term architectural view, not all functions will be standardized
at the same time.
2. The Network View
This section describes the various elements in a network with
autonomic functions, and how these entities work together, on a high
level. Subsequent sections explain the detailed inside view for each
of the autonomic network elements, as well as the network functions
(or interfaces) between those elements.
Figure 1 shows the high level view of an Autonomic Network. It
consists of a number of autonomic nodes, which interact directly with
each other. Those autonomic nodes provide a common set of
capabilities across the network, called the "Autonomic Networking
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
Infrastructure" (ANI). The ANI provides functions like naming,
addressing, negotiation, synchronization, discovery and messaging.
Autonomic functions typically span several, possibly all nodes in the
network. The atomic entities of an autonomic function are called the
"Autonomic Service Agents" (ASA), which are instantiated on nodes.
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
: : Autonomic Function 1 : :
: ASA 1 : ASA 1 : ASA 1 : ASA 1 :
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
: : :
: +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + :
: : Autonomic Function 2 : :
: : ASA 2 : ASA 2 : :
: +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + :
: : :
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
: Autonomic Networking Infrastructure :
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
+--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+
| Node 1 |--------| Node 2 |--------| Node 3 |----...-----| Node n |
+--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+
Figure 1: High level view of an Autonomic Network
In a horizontal view, autonomic functions span across the network, as
well as the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure. In a vertical view,
a node always implements the ANI, plus it may have one or several
Autonomic Service Agents.
The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (ANI) therefore is the
foundation for autonomic functions. The current charter of the ANIMA
WG is to specify the ANI, using a few autonomic functions as use
cases.
3. The Autonomic Network Element
3.1. Architecture
This section describes an autonomic network element and its internal
architecture. The reference model explained in the document
"Autonomic Networking - Definitions and Design Goals" [RFC7575] shows
the sources of information that an autonomic service agent can
leverage: Self-knowledge, network knowledge (through discovery),
Intent, and feedback loops. Fundamentally, there are two levels
inside an autonomic node: the level of Autonomic Service Agents, and
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
the level of the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure, with the former
using the services of the latter. Figure 2 illustrates this concept.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +-----------+ +------------+ +------------+ |
| | Autonomic | | Autonomic | | Autonomic | |
| | Service | | Service | | Service | |
| | Agent 1 | | Agent 2 | | Agent 3 | |
| +-----------+ +------------+ +------------+ |
| ^ ^ ^ |
| - - | - - API level - -| - - - - - - - |- - - |
| V V V |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Autonomic Networking Infrastructure |
| - Data structures (ex: certificates, peer information) |
| - Autonomic Control Plane |
| - Autonomic Node Addressing |
| Discovery, negotiation and synchronisation functions |
| - Intent distribution |
| - Aggregated reporting and feedback loops |
| - Routing |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Basic Operating System Functions |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Model of an autonomic node
The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (lower part of Figure 2)
contains node specific data structures, for example trust information
about itself and its peers, as well as a generic set of functions,
independent of a particular usage. This infrastructure should be
generic, and support a variety of Autonomic Service Agents (upper
part of Figure 2). The Autonomic Control Plane is the summary of all
interactions of the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure with other
nodes and services.
The use cases of "Autonomics" such as self-management, self-
optimisation, etc, are implemented as Autonomic Service Agents. They
use the services and data structures of the underlying autonomic
networking infrastructure. The underlying Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure should itself be self-managing.
The "Basic Operating System Functions" include the "normal OS",
including the network stack, security functions, etc.
Full AN nodes have the full Autonomic Networking Infrastructure, with
the full functionality described in this document. At a later stage
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
ANIMA may define a scope for constrained nodes with a reduced ANI and
well-defined minimal functionality. They are currently out of scope.
4. The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure
The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure provides a layer of common
functionality across an Autonomic Network. It comprises "must
implement" functions and services, as well as extensions.
An Autonomic Function, comprising of Autonomic Service Agents on
nodes, can rely on the fact that all nodes in the network implement
at least the "must implement" functions.
4.1. Naming
Inside a domain, each autonomic device should be assigned a name.
Basic considerations for forming the names is as the following:
o Uniqueness: The names must not collide within one autonomic
domain. It is acceptable that the names in different domains
collide, since they could be distinguished by domains.
o Consistency: The devices' naming should follow the same pattern
within a domain.
o Autonomic: The names must be assigned automatically without any
human intervention.
It is recommended that the names are generated by the autonomic nodes
themselves.
Specific naming convention is out of the scope of this document."
4.2. Addressing
Autonomic Service Agents (ASAs) need to communicate with each other,
using the autonomic addressing of the node they reside on. This
section describes the addressing approach of the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure, used by ASAs. It does NOT describe addressing
approaches for the data plane of the network, which may be configured
and managed in the traditional way, or negotiated as a service of an
ASA. One use case for such an autonomic function is described in
[I-D.jiang-auto-addr-management]. The addressing of the Autonomic
Networking Infrastructure is in scope for this section, the address
space they negotiate for the data plane is not.
Autonomic addressing is a function of the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure (lower part of Figure 2), specifically the Autonomic
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
Control Plane. ASAs do not have their own addresses. They may use
either API calls, or the autonomic addressing scheme of the Autonomic
Networking Infrastructure.
An autonomic addressing scheme has the following requirements:
o Zero-touch for simple networks: Simple networks should have
complete self-management of addressing, and not require any
central address management, tools, or address planning.
o Low-touch for complex networks: If complex networks require
operator input for autonomic address management, it should be
limited to high level guidance only, expressed in Intent.
o Flexibility: The addressing scheme must be flexible enough for
nodes to be able to move around, for the network to grow, split
and merge.
o Robustness: It should be as hard as possible for an administrator
to negatively affect addressing (and thus connectivity) in the
autonomic context.
o Support for virtualization: Autonomic Nodes may support Autonomic
Service Agents in different virtual machines or containers. The
addressing scheme should support this architecture.
o Simplicity: To make engineering simpler, and to give the human
administrator an easy way to trouble-shoot autonomic functions.
o Scale: The proposed scheme should work in any network of any size.
o Upgradability: The scheme must be able to support different
addressing concepts in the future.
The proposed addressing scheme is described in the document "An
Autonomic Control Plane" ([I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]).
4.3. Discovery
Traditionally, most of the information a node requires is provided
through configuration or northbound interfaces. An autonomic
function should rely on such northbound interfaces minimally or not
at all, and therefore it needs to discover peers and other resources
in the network. This section describes various discovery functions
in an autonomic network.
Discovering nodes and their properties and capabilities: A core
function to establish an autonomic domain is the mutual discovery of
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
autonomic nodes, primarily adjacent nodes and secondarily off-link
peers. This may in principle either leverage existing discovery
mechanisms, or use new mechanisms tailored to the autonomic context.
An important point is that discovery must work in a network with no
predefined topology, ideally no manual configuration of any kind, and
with nodes starting up from factory condition or after any form of
failure or sudden topology change.
Discovering services: Network services such as AAA should also be
discovered and not configured. Service discovery is required for
such tasks. An autonomic network can either leverage existing
service discovery functions, or use a new approach, or a mixture.
Thus the discovery mechanism could either be fully integrated with
autonomic signaling (next section) or could use an independent
discovery mechanism such as DNS Service Discovery or Service Location
Protocol. This choice could be made independently for each Autonomic
Service Agent, although the infrastructure might require some minimal
lowest common denominator (e.g., for discovering the security
bootstrap mechanism, or the source of intent distribution,
Section 4.7).
The currently proposed protocol for node discovery is GRASP,
described in [I-D.ietf-anima-grasp].
4.4. The Autonomic Control Plane
The totality of autonomic interactions forms the "Autonomic Control
Plane". This control plane can be either implemented in the global
routing table of a node, such as IGPs in today's networks; or it can
be provided as an overlay network. The document "An Autonomic
Control Plane" ([I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]) describes
the details.
4.5. Signaling Between Autonomic Nodes
Autonomic nodes must communicate with each other, for example to
negotiate and/or synchronize technical objectives (i.e., network
parameters) of any kind and complexity. This requires some form of
signaling between autonomic nodes. Autonomic nodes implementing a
specific use case might choose their own signaling protocol, as long
as it fits the overall security model. However, in the general case,
any pair of autonomic nodes might need to communicate, so there needs
to be a generic protocol for this. A prerequisite for this is that
autonomic nodes can discover each other without any preconfiguration,
as mentioned above. To be generic, discovery and signaling must be
able to handle any sort of technical objective, including ones that
require complex data structures. The document "A Generic Discovery
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
and Negotiation Protocol for Autonomic Networking"
[I-D.ietf-anima-grasp] describes more detailed requirements for
discovery, negotiation and synchronization in an autonomic network.
It also defines a protocol, GRASP, for this purpose, including an
integrated but optional discovery protocol.
The currently proposed protocol for signalling is GRASP, described in
[I-D.ietf-anima-grasp]. It is expected to run inside the Autonomic
Control Plane (see Section 4.4).
4.6. Routing
All autonomic nodes in a domain must be able to communicate with each
other, and with autonomic nodes outside their own domain. Therefore,
an Autonomic Control Plane relies on a routing function. For
Autonomic Networks to be interoperable, they must all support one
common routing protocol.
The routing protocol is defined in the ACP document
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
4.7. Intent Distribution
[Editor's note: Intent is not yet in scope of the ANIMA charter as of
March 2016. The following information is provided to help understand
the long term ANIMA reference model.]
Intent is the policy language of an Autonomic Network; see
Section 8.2 for general information on Intent. The distribution of
Intent is also a function of the Autonomic Control Plane. It is
expected that Intent will be expressed as quite complex human-
readable data structures, and the distribution mechanism must be able
to support that. Some Intent items will need to be flooded to most
or all nodes, and other items of Intent may only be needed by a few
nodes. Various methods could be used to distribute Intent across an
autonomic domain. One approach is to treat it like any other
technical objective needing to be synchronized across a set of nodes.
In that case the autonomic signaling protocol could be used (previous
section).
5. Functional Overview
This section provides an overview on how the functions in the
Autonomic Networking Infrastructure work together, and how the
various documents about AN relate to each other.
The foundations of Autonomic Networking, definitions and gap analysis
in the context of the IETF are described in [RFC7575] and [RFC7576].
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
Autonomic Networking is based on direct interactions between devices
of a domain. The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (ANI) is
normally built on a hop-by-hop basis. Therefore, many interactions
in the ANI are based on the ANI adjacency table. There are
interactions that provide input into the adjacency table, and other
interactions that leverage the information contained in it.
The ANI adjacency table contains information about adjacent autonomic
nodes, at a minimum: node-ID, IP address in data plane, IP address in
ACP, domain, certificate. An autonomic node maintains this adjacency
table up to date. The adjacency table only contains information
about other nodes that are capable of Autonomic Networking; non-
autonomic nodes are normally not tracked here. However, the
information is tracked independently of the status of the peer nodes;
specifically, it contains information about non-enrolled nodes, nodes
of the same and other domains. The adjacency table MAY contain
information about the validity and trust of the adjacent autonomic
node's certificate, although all autonomic interactions must verify
validity and trust independently.
The adjacency table is fed by the following inputs:
o Link local discovery: This interaction happens in the data plane,
using IPv6 link local addressing only, because this addressing
type is itself autonomic. This way the nodes learns about all
autonomic nodes around itself. This is described in
[I-D.ietf-anima-grasp].
o Vendor re-direct: A new device may receive information on where
its home network is through a vendor based MASA re-direct; this is
typically a routable address. See
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra].
o Non-autonomic input: A node may be configured manually with an
autonomic peer; it could learn about autonomic nodes through DHCP
options, DNS, and other non-autonomic mechanisms. Generally such
non-autonomic mechansims require some administrator intervention.
The key purpose is to by-pass a non-autonomic device or network.
As this pertains to new devices, it is covered in Section 5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra].
The adjacency table is defining the behaviour of an autonomic node:
o If the node has not bootstrapped into a domain (i.e., doesn't have
a domain certificate), it rotates through all nodes in the
adjacency table that claim to have a domain, and will attempt
bootstrapping through them, one by one. One possible response is
a vendor MASA re-direct, which will be entered into the adjacency
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
table (see second bullet above). See
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra].
o If the node has bootstrapped into a domain (i.e., has a domain
certificate), it will act as a proxy for neighboring nodes that
need to be bootstrapped. See
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra].
o If the adjacent node has the same domain, it will authenticate
that adjacent node and establish the Autonomic Control Plane
(ACP). See [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
o Other behaviours are possible, for example establishing the ACP
also with devices of a sub-domain, to other domains, etc. Those
will likely be controlled by Intent. They are outside scope for
the moment. Note that Intent is distributed through the ACP;
therefore, a node can only adapt Intent driven behaviour once it
has joined the ACP. At the moment, ANIMA does not consider
providing Intent outside the ACP; this can be considered later.
Once a node has joined the ACP, it will also learn the ACP addresses
of its adjacent nodes, and add them to the adjacency table, to allow
for communication inside the ACP. Further interactions will now
happen inside the ACP. At this moment, only negotiation /
synchronization via GRASP [I-D.ietf-anima-grasp] is being defined.
(Note that GRASP runs in the data plane, as an input in building the
adjacency table, as well as inside the ACP.)
Autonomic Functions consist of Autonomic Service Agents (ASAs). They
run logically above the AN Infrastructure, and may use the adjacency
table, the ACP, negotiation and synchronization through GRASP in the
ACP, Intent and other functions of the ANI. Since the ANI only
provides autonomic interactions within a domain, autonomic functions
can also use any other context on a node, specifically the global
data plane.
6. Security and Trust Infrastructure
An Autonomic Network is self-protecting. All protocols are secure by
default, without the requirement for the administrator to explicitly
configure security.
Autonomic nodes have direct interactions between themselves, which
must be secured. Since an autonomic network does not rely on
configuration, it is not an option to configure for example pre-
shared keys. A trust infrastructure such as a PKI infrastructure
must be in place. This section describes the principles of this
trust infrastructure.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
A completely autonomic way to automatically and securely deploy such
a trust infrastructure is to set up a trust anchor for the domain,
and then use an approach as in the document "Bootstrapping Key
Infrastructures" [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra].
6.1. Public Key Infrastructure
An autonomic domain uses a PKI model. The root of trust is a
certification authority (CA). A registrar acts as a registration
authority (RA).
A minimum implementation of an autonomic domain contains one CA, one
Registrar, and network elements.
6.2. Domain Certificate
Each device in an autonomic domain uses a domain certificate to prove
its identity. [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] describes how
a new device receives a domain certificate, and the certificate
format.
6.3. The MASA
The Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority (MASA) is a trusted
service for bootstrapping devices. The purpose of the MASA is to
provide ownership tracking of devices in a domain. The MASA provides
audit, authorization, and ownership tokens to the registrar during
the bootstrap process to assist in the authentication of devices
attempting to join an Autonomic Domain, and to allow a joining device
to validate whether it is joining the correct domain. The details
for MASA service, security, and usage are defined in
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra].
6.4. Sub-Domains
By default, sub-domains are treated as different domains. This
implies no trust between a domain and its sub-domains, and no trust
between sub-domains of the same domain. Specifically, no ACP is
built, and Intent is valid only for the domain it is defined for
explicitly.
In the future, alternative trust models can be defined, for example
to allow full or limited trust between domain and sub-domain.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
6.5. Cross-Domain Functionality
By default, different domains do not interoperate, no ACP is built
and no trust is implied between them.
In the future, models can be established where other domains can be
trusted in full or for limited operations between the domains.
7. Autonomic Service Agents (ASA)
This section describes how autonomic services run on top of the
Autonomic Networking Infrastructure.
7.1. General Description of an ASA
general concepts, such as sitting on top of the ANI, etc. Also needs
to explain that on a constrained node not all ASAs may run, so we
have two classes of ASAs: Ones that run on an unconstrained node, and
limited function ASAs that run also on constrained nodes. We expect
unconstrained nodes to support all ASAs.
7.2. Specific ASAs for the Enrolment Process
The following ASAs provide essential, required functionality in an
autonomic network, and are therefore mandatory to implement on
unconstrained autonomic nodes.
7.2.1. The Enrolment ASA
This section describes the function of an autonomic node to bootstrap
into the domain with the help of an enrolment proxy (see previous
section). [tbc]
7.2.2. The Enrolment Proxy ASA
This section describes the function of an autonomic node that helps a
non-enrolled, adjacent devices to enrol into the domain. [tbc]
7.2.3. The Registrar ASA
This section describes the registrar function in an autonomic
network. It explains the tasks of a registrar element, and how
registrars are placed in a network, redundancy between several, etc.
[tbc]
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
8. Management and Programmability
This section describes how an Autonomic Network is managed, and
programmed.
8.1. How an AN Network Is Managed
Autonomic management usually co-exists with traditional management
methods in most networks. Thus, autonomic behavior will be defined
for individual functions in most environments. In fact, the co-
existence is twofold: autonomic functions can use traditional methods
and protocols (e.g., SNMP and NETCONF) to perform management tasks;
and autonomic functions can conflict with behavior enforced by the
same traditional methods and protocols.
The autonomic intent is defined at a high level of abstraction.
However, since it is necessary to address individual managed
elements, autonomic management needs to communicate in lower-level
interactions (e.g., commands and requests). For example, it is
expected that the configuration of such elements be performed using
NETCONF and YANG modules as well as the monitoring be executed
through SNMP and MIBs.
Conflict can occur between autonomic default behavior, autonomic
intent, traditional management methods. Conflict resolution is
achieved in autonomic management through prioritization [RFC7575].
The rationale is that manual and node-based management have a higher
priority over autonomic management. Thus, the autonomic default
behavior has the lowest priority, then comes the autonomic Intent
(medium priority), and, finally, the highest priority is taken by
node-specific network management methods, such as the use of command
line interfaces [RFC7575].
8.2. Intent (*)
This section describes Intent, and how it is managed. Intent and
Policy-Based Network Management (PBNM) is already described inside
the IETF (e.g., PCIM and SUPA) and in other SDOs (e.g., DMTF and TMF
ZOOM).
Intent can be describe as an abstract, declarative, high-level policy
used to operate an autonomic domain, such as an enterprise network
[RFC7575]. Intent should be limited to high level guidance only,
thus it does not directly define a policy for every network element
separately. It is expected intent definitions from autonomic
function(s) and even from traditional network management elements.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
Intent can be refined to lower level policies using different
approaches. This is expected in order to adapt the intent to the
capabilities of managed devices. Intent may contain role or function
information, which can be translated to specific nodes [RFC7575].
One of the possible refinements of the intent is using Event-
Condition-Action (ECA) rules.
Different parameters may be configured for intents. These parameters
are usually provided by the human operator. Some of these parameters
can influence the behavior of specific autonomic functions as well as
the way the intent is used to manage the autonomic domain.
Some examples of parameters for intents are:
o Model version: The version of the model used to define the intent.
o Domain: The network scope in which the intent has effect.
o Name: The name of the intent which describes the intent for human
operators.
o Version: The version of the intent, which is primarly used to
control intent updates.
o Signature: The signature is used as a security mechanism to
provide authentication, integrity, and non-repudiation.
o Timestamp: The timestamp of the creation of the intent using the
format supported by the IETF [TBC].
o Lifetime: The lifetime in which the intent may be observed. A
special case of the lifetime is the definition of permanent
intents.
8.3. Aggregated Reporting (*)
Autonomic Network should minimize the need for human intervention.
In terms of how the network should behave, this is done through an
autonomic intent provided by the human administrator. In an
analogous manner, the reports which describe the operational status
of the network should aggregate the information produced in different
network elements in order to present the effectiveness of autonomic
intent enforcement. Therefore, reporting in an autonomic network
should happen on a network-wide basis [RFC7575].
Several events can occur in an autonomic network in the same way they
can happen in a traditional network. However, when reporting to a
human administrator, such events should be aggregated to avoid
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
advertisement about individual managed elements. In this context,
algorithms may be used to determine what should be reported (e.g.,
filtering) and in which way and how different events are related to
each other. Besides that, an event in an individual element can be
compensated by changes in other elements to maintain a network-wide
level which is described in the autonomic intent.
Reporting in an autonomic network may be in the same abstraction
level of the intent. In this context, the visibility on current
operational status of an autonomic network can be used to switch to
different management modes. Despite the fact that autonomic
management should minimize the need for user intervention, possibly
there are some events that need to be addressed by human
administrator actions.
8.4. Feedback Loops to NOC(*)
Feedback loops are required in an autonomic network to allow the
intervention of a human administrator or central control systems,
while maintaining a default behaviour. Through a feedback loop an
administrator can be prompted with a default action, and has the
possibility to acknowledge or override the proposed default action.
8.5. Control Loops (*)
Control loops are used in autonomic networking to provide a generic
mechanism to enable the Autonomic System to adapt (on its own) to
various factors that can change the goals that the Autonomic System
is trying to achieve, or how those goals are achieved. For example,
as user needs, business goals, and the ANI itself changes, self-
adaptation enables the ANI to change the services and resources it
makes available to adapt to these changes.
Control loops operate to continuously observe and collect data that
enables the autonomic management system to understand changes to the
behavior of the system being managed, and then provide actions to
move the state of the system being managed toward a common goal.
Self-adaptive systems move decision-making from static, pre-defined
commands to dynamic processes computed at runtime.
Most autonomic systems use a closed control loop with feedback. Such
control loops SHOULD be able to be dynamically changed at runtime to
adapt to changing user needs, business goals, and changes in the ANI.
The document [draft-strassner-anima-control-loop] defines the
requirements for an autonomic control loop, describes different types
of control loops, and explains how control loops are used in an
autonomic system.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
8.6. APIs (*)
Most APIs are static, meaning that they are pre-defined and represent
an invariant mechanism for operating with data. An Autonomic Network
SHOULD be able to use dynamic APIs in addition to static APIs.
A dynamic API is one that retrieves data using a generic mechanism,
and then enables the client to navigate the retrieved data and
operate on it. Such APIs typically use introspection and/or
reflection. Introspection enables software to examine the type and
properties of an object at runtime, while reflection enables a
program to manipulate the attributes, methods, and/or metadata of an
object.
APIs MUST be able to express and preserve semantics across different
domains. For example, software contracts [Meyer97] are based on the
principle that a software-intensive system, such as an Autonomic
Network, is a set of communicating components whose interaction is
based on precisely-defined specifications of the mutual obligations
that interacting components must respect. This typically includes
specifying:
o pre-conditions that MUST be satisfied before the method can start
execution
o post-conditions that MUST be satisfied when the method has
finished execution
o invariant attributes that MUST NOT change during the execution of
the method
8.7. Data Model (*)
The following definitions are taken from [supa-model]:
An information model is a representation of concepts of interest to
an environment in a form that is independent of data repository, data
definition language, query language, implementation language, and
protocol. In contrast, a data model is a representation of concepts
of interest to an environment in a form that is dependent on data
repository, data definition language, query language, implementation
language, and protocol (typically, but not necessarily, all three).
The utility of an information model is to define objects and their
relationships in a technology-neutral manner. This forms a
consensual vocabulary that the ANI and ASAs can use. A data model is
then a technology-specific mapping of all or part of the information
model to be used by all or part of the system.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
A system may have multiple data models. Operational Support Systems,
for example, typically have multiple types of repositories, such as
SQL and NoSQL, to take advantage of the different properties of each.
If multiple data models are required by an Autonomic System, then an
information model SHOULD be used to ensure that the concepts of each
data model can be related to each other without technological bias.
A data model is essential for certain types of functions, such as a
MRACL. More generally, a data model can be used to define the
objects, attributes, methods, and relationships of a software system
(e.g., the ANI, an autonomic node, or an ASA). A data model can be
used to help design an API, as well as any language used to interface
to the Autonomic Network.
9. Coordination Between Autonomic Functions (*)
9.1. The Coordination Problem (*)
Different autonomic functions may conflict in setting certain
parameters. For example, an energy efficiency function may want to
shut down a redundant link, while a load balancing function would not
want that to happen. The administrator must be able to understand
and resolve such interactions, to steer autonomic network performance
to a given (intended) operational point.
Several interaction types may exist among autonomic functions, for
example:
o Cooperation: An autonomic function can improve the behavior or
performance of another autonomic function, such as a traffic
forecasting function used by a traffic allocation function.
o Dependency: An autonomic function cannot work without another one
being present or accessible in the autonomic network.
o Conflict: A metric value conflict is a conflict where one metric
is influenced by parameters of different autonomic functions. A
parameter value conflict is a conflict where one parameter is
modified by different autonomic functions.
Solving the coordination problem beyond one-by-one cases can rapidly
become intractable for large networks. Specifying a common
functional block on coordination is a first step to address the
problem in a systemic way. The coordination life-cycle consists in
three states:
o At build-time, a "static interaction map" can be constructed on
the relationship of functions and attributes. This map can be
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
used to (pre-)define policies and priorities on identified
conflicts.
o At deploy-time, autonomic functions are not yet active/acting on
the network. A "dynamic interaction map" is created for each
instance of each autonomic functions and on a per resource basis,
including the actions performed and their relationships. This map
provides the basis to identify conflicts that will happen at run-
time, categorize them and plan for the appropriate coordination
strategies/mechanisms.
o At run-time, when conflicts happen, arbitration is driven by the
coordination strategies. Also new dependencies can be observed
and inferred, resulting in an update of the dynamic interaction
map and adaptation of the coordination strategies and mechanisms.
Multiple coordination strategies and mechanisms exists and can be
devised. The set ranges from basic approaches such as random process
or token-based process, to approaches based on time separation and
hierarchical optimization, to more complex approaches such as multi-
objective optimization, and other control theory approaches and
algorithms family.
9.2. A Coordination Functional Block (*)
A common coordination functional block is a desirable component of
the ANIMA reference model. It provides a means to ensure network
properties and predictable performance or behavior such as stability,
and convergence, in the presence of several interacting autonomic
functions.
A common coordination function requires:
o A common description of autonomic functions, their attributes and
life-cycle.
o A common representation of information and knowledge (e.g.,
interaction maps).
o A common "control/command" interface between the coordination
"agent" and the autonomic functions.
Guidelines, recommendations or BCPs can also be provided for aspects
pertaining to the coordination strategies and mechanisms.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
10. Security Considerations
10.1. Threat Analysis
This is a preliminary outline of a threat analysis, to be expanded
and made more specific as the various Autonomic Networking
specifications evolve.
Since AN will hand over responsibility for network configuration from
humans or centrally established management systems to fully
distributed devices, the threat environment is also fully
distributed. On the one hand, that means there is no single point of
failure to act as an attractive target for bad actors. On the other
hand, it means that potentially a single misbehaving autonomic device
could launch a widespread attack, by misusing the distributed AN
mechanisms. For example, a resource exhaustion attack could be
launched by a single device requesting large amounts of that resource
from all its peers, on behalf of a non-existent traffic load.
Alternatively it could simply send false information to its peers,
for example by announcing resource exhaustion when this was not the
case. If security properties are managed autonomically, a
misbehaving device could attempt a distributed attack by requesting
all its peers to reduce security protections in some way. In
general, since autonomic devices run without supervision, almost any
kind of undesirable management action could in theory be attempted by
a misbehaving device.
If it is possible for an unauthorised device to act as an autonomic
device, or for a malicious third party to inject messages appearing
to come from an autonomic device, all these same risks would apply.
If AN messages can be observed by a third party, they might reveal
valuable information about network configuration, security
precautions in use, individual users, and their traffic patterns. If
encrypted, AN messages might still reveal some information via
traffic analysis, but this would be quite limited (for example, this
would be highly unlikely to reveal any specific information about
user traffic). AN messages are liable to be exposed to third parties
on any unprotected Layer 2 link, and to insider attacks even on
protected Layer 2 links.
11. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by IANA.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
12. Acknowledgements
Many people have provided feedback and input to this document: Sheng
Jiang, Roberta Maglione, Jonathan Hansford.
13. References
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing]
Behringer, M., "An Autonomic IPv6 Addressing Scheme",
draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-02 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
Autonomic Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-
control-plane-01 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., and S.
Bjarnason, "Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-
ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-02 (work in progress),
March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-anima-grasp]
Bormann, C., Carpenter, B., and B. Liu, "A Generic
Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)", draft-ietf-anima-
grasp-04 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.jiang-auto-addr-management]
Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and Q. Qiong, "Autonomic
Networking Use Case for Auto Address Management", draft-
jiang-auto-addr-management-00 (work in progress), April
2014.
[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>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[RFC7404] Behringer, M. and E. Vyncke, "Using Only Link-Local
Addressing inside an IPv6 Network", RFC 7404,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7404, November 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7404>.
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
[RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
[RFC7576] Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and M. Behringer, "General Gap
Analysis for Autonomic Networking", RFC 7576,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7576, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7576>.
Authors' Addresses
Michael H. Behringer (editor)
Cisco Systems
Building D, 45 Allee des Ormes
Mougins 06250
France
Email: mbehring@cisco.com
Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Toerless Eckert
Cisco
Email: eckert@cisco.com
Laurent Ciavaglia
Alcatel Lucent
Route de Villejust
Nozay 91620
France
Email: laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft AN Reference Model March 2016
Bing Liu
Huawei Technologies
Q14, Huawei Campus
No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100095
P.R. China
Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com
Jeferson Campos Nobre
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Av. Bento Goncalves, 9500
Porto Alegre 91501-970
Brazil
Email: jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br
John Strassner
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: john.sc.strassner@huawei.com
Behringer, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 23]
