< draft-boucadair-dots-multihoming-03.txt		draft-boucadair-dots-multihoming-04.txt >
	Network Working Group M. Boucadair		Network Working Group M. Boucadair
	Internet-Draft Orange		Internet-Draft Orange
	Intended status: Standards Track T. Reddy		Intended status: Standards Track T. Reddy
	Expires: October 11, 2018 McAfee		Expires: April 10, 2019 McAfee
	April 9, 2018		October 7, 2018
	Multi-homing Deployment Considerations for Distributed-Denial-of-Service		Multi-homing Deployment Considerations for Distributed-Denial-of-Service
	Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)		Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
	draft-boucadair-dots-multihoming-03		draft-boucadair-dots-multihoming-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document discusses multi-homing considerations for Distributed-		This document discusses multi-homing considerations for Distributed-
	Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS). The goal is to		Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS). The goal is to
	provide a set of guidance for DOTS clients/gateways when multihomed.		provide a set of guidance for DOTS clients/gateways when multihomed.
	Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
	2119 [RFC2119].
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 10, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Multi-Homing Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. Residential CPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Multi-Homing Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.2. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream		4.1. Residential CPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			4.2. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream
	ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.3. Multi-homed Enterprise: Multiple CPEs, Multiple Upstream		4.3. Multi-homed Enterprise: Multiple CPEs, Multiple Upstream
	ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.4. Multi-homed Enterprise with the Same ISP . . . . . . . . 7		4.4. Multi-homed Enterprise with the Same ISP . . . . . . . . 7
	4. DOTS Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. DOTS Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.1. Residential CPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1. Residential CPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream		5.2. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream
	ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.3. Multi-homed Enterprise: Multiple CPEs, Multiple Upstream		5.3. Multi-homed Enterprise: Multiple CPEs, Multiple Upstream
	ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.4. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single ISP . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.4. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single ISP . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	In many deployments, it may not be possible for a network to		In many deployments, it may not be possible for a network to
	determine the cause for a distributed Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack		determine the cause for a distributed Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack
	[RFC4732], but instead just realize that some resources seem to be		[RFC4732], but instead just realize that some resources seem to be
	under attack. To fill that gap, the IETF is specifying an		under attack. To fill that gap, the IETF is specifying an
	architecture, called DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)		architecture, called DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
	[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture], in which a DOTS client can inform a		[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture], in which a DOTS client can inform a
	skipping to change at page 4, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶
	* Provider-Independent (PI) vs. Provider-Aggregatable (PA)		* Provider-Independent (PI) vs. Provider-Aggregatable (PA)
	o Describe the recommended behavior of DOTS clients and gateways for		o Describe the recommended behavior of DOTS clients and gateways for
	each case.		each case.
	Multi-homed DOTS agents are assumed to make use of the protocols		Multi-homed DOTS agents are assumed to make use of the protocols
	defined in [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel] and		defined in [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel] and
	[I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel]; no specific extension is required to		[I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel]; no specific extension is required to
	the base DOTS protocols for deploying DOTS in a multihomed context.		the base DOTS protocols for deploying DOTS in a multihomed context.
	2. Terminology		2. Requirements Language
			The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
			"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
			"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
			14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
			capitals, as shown here.
			3. Terminology
	This document makes use of the terms defined in		This document makes use of the terms defined in
	[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture] and [RFC4116].		[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture] and [RFC4116].
	IP refers to both IPv4 and IPv6.		IP refers to both IPv4 and IPv6.
	3. Multi-Homing Scenarios		4. Multi-Homing Scenarios
	This section briefly describes some multi-homing scenarios that are		This section briefly describes some multi-homing scenarios that are
	relevant to DOTS. In the following sub-sections, only the		relevant to DOTS. In the following sub-sections, only the
	connections of border routers are shown; internal network topologies		connections of border routers are shown; internal network topologies
	are not elaborated hereafter.		are not elaborated hereafter.
	3.1. Residential CPE		4.1. Residential CPE
	The scenario shown in Figure 2 is characterized as follows:		The scenario shown in Figure 2 is characterized as follows:
	o The home network is connected to the Internet using one single CPE		o The home network is connected to the Internet using one single CPE
	(Customer Premises Equipment).		(Customer Premises Equipment).
	o The CPE is connected to multiple provisioning domains (i.e. both		o The CPE is connected to multiple provisioning domains (i.e. both
	fixed and mobile networks). Provisioning domain (PvD) is		fixed and mobile networks). Provisioning domain (PvD) is
	explained in [RFC7556].		explained in [RFC7556].
	skipping to change at page 5, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 41 ¶
	............|....................|.......................		............|....................|.......................
	+---------++---------+ Home Network		+---------++---------+ Home Network
	||		||
	+--++-+		+--++-+
	| CPE |		| CPE |
	+-----+		+-----+
	... (Internal Network)		... (Internal Network)
	Figure 2: Typical Multi-homed Residential CPE		Figure 2: Typical Multi-homed Residential CPE
	3.2. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream ISPs		4.2. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream ISPs
	The scenario shown in Figure 3 is characterized as follows:		The scenario shown in Figure 3 is characterized as follows:
	o The enterprise network is connected to the Internet using one		o The enterprise network is connected to the Internet using one
	single router.		single router.
	o That router is connected to multiple provisioning domains (i.e.		o That router is connected to multiple provisioning domains (i.e.
	managed by distinct administrative entities).		managed by distinct administrative entities).
	Unlike the previous scenario, two sub-cases can be considered for an		Unlike the previous scenario, two sub-cases can be considered for an
	skipping to change at page 6, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 31 ¶
	+---------++---------+ Enterprise Network		+---------++---------+ Enterprise Network
	||		||
	+--++-+		+--++-+
	| rtr |		| rtr |
	+-----+		+-----+
	... (Internal Network)		... (Internal Network)
	Figure 3: Multi-homed Enterprise Network (Single CPE connected to		Figure 3: Multi-homed Enterprise Network (Single CPE connected to
	Multiple Networks)		Multiple Networks)
	3.3. Multi-homed Enterprise: Multiple CPEs, Multiple Upstream ISPs		4.3. Multi-homed Enterprise: Multiple CPEs, Multiple Upstream ISPs
	This scenario is similar to the one in Section 3.2; the main		This scenario is similar to the one in Section 4.2; the main
	difference is that dedicated routers are used to connect to each		difference is that dedicated routers are used to connect to each
	provisioning domain.		provisioning domain.
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	| ISP1 | | ISP2 |		| ISP1 | | ISP2 |
	+---+--+ +--+---+		+---+--+ +--+---+
	| | Service Providers		| | Service Providers
	......................|..........|.......................		......................|..........|.......................
	| | Enterprise Network		| | Enterprise Network
	+---+--+ +--+---+		+---+--+ +--+---+
	| rtr1 | | rtr2 |		| rtr1 | | rtr2 |
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	... (Internal Network)		... (Internal Network)
	Figure 4: Multi-homed Enterprise Network (Multiple CPEs, Multiple		Figure 4: Multi-homed Enterprise Network (Multiple CPEs, Multiple
	ISPs)		ISPs)
	3.4. Multi-homed Enterprise with the Same ISP		4.4. Multi-homed Enterprise with the Same ISP
	This scenario is a variant of Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 in which		This scenario is a variant of Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 in which
	multi-homing is provided by the same ISP (i.e., same provisioning		multi-homing is provided by the same ISP (i.e., same provisioning
	domain).		domain).
	4. DOTS Deployment Considerations		5. DOTS Deployment Considerations
	Table 1 provides some sample (non-exhaustive) deployment schemes to		Table 1 provides some sample (non-exhaustive) deployment schemes to
	illustrate how DOTS agents may be deployed for each of the scenarios		illustrate how DOTS agents may be deployed for each of the scenarios
	introduced in Section 3.		introduced in Section 4.
	+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+		+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+
	| Scenario | DOTS client | DOTS |		| Scenario | DOTS client | DOTS |
	| | | gateway |		| | | gateway |
	+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+		+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+
	| Residential CPE | CPE | N/A |		| Residential CPE | CPE | N/A |
	+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+		+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+
	| Single CPE, Multiple | internal hosts or CPE | CPE |		| Single CPE, Multiple | internal hosts or CPE | CPE |
	| provisioning domains | | |		| provisioning domains | | |
	+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+		+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+
	skipping to change at page 7, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 39 ¶
	| Multi-homed enterprise, | internal hosts or all | CPEs (rtr1 |		| Multi-homed enterprise, | internal hosts or all | CPEs (rtr1 |
	| Single provisioning | CPEs (rtr1 and rtr2) | and rtr2) |		| Single provisioning | CPEs (rtr1 and rtr2) | and rtr2) |
	| domain | | |		| domain | | |
	+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+		+---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------+
	Table 1: Sample Deployment Cases		Table 1: Sample Deployment Cases
	These deployment schemes are further discussed in the following sub-		These deployment schemes are further discussed in the following sub-
	sections.		sections.
	4.1. Residential CPE		5.1. Residential CPE
	Figure 5 depicts DOTS signaling sessions that are required to be		Figure 5 depicts DOTS signaling sessions that are required to be
	established between a DOTS client (C) and DOTS servers (S1, S2) in		established between a DOTS client (C) and DOTS servers (S1, S2) in
	the context of the scenario described in Section 3.1.		the context of the scenario described in Section 4.1.
	The DOTS client MUST resolve the DOTS server's name provided by a		The DOTS client MUST resolve the DOTS server's name provided by a
	provisioning domain ([I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discovery]) using the		provisioning domain ([I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discovery]) using the
	DNS servers learned from the same provisioning domain. The DOTS		DNS servers learned from the same provisioning domain. The DOTS
	client MUST use the source address selection algorithm defined in		client MUST use the source address selection algorithm defined in
	[RFC6724] to select the candidate source addresses to contact each of		[RFC6724] to select the candidate source addresses to contact each of
	these DOTS servers. DOTS signaling sessions must be established and		these DOTS servers. DOTS signaling sessions must be established and
	maintained with each of the DOTS servers because the mitigation scope		maintained with each of the DOTS servers because the mitigation scope
	of these servers is restricted. The DOTS client SHOULD use the		of these servers is restricted. The DOTS client SHOULD use the
	certificate provisioned by a provisioning domain to authenticate		certificate provisioned by a provisioning domain to authenticate
	skipping to change at page 8, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 43 ¶
	| C |		| C |
	+---+\		+---+\
	\		\
	\		\
	\ +--+		\ +--+
	-----------|S2|		-----------|S2|
	+--+		+--+
	Figure 5: DOTS associations for a multihomed residential CPE		Figure 5: DOTS associations for a multihomed residential CPE
	4.2. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream ISPs		5.2. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream ISPs
	Figure 6 illustrates a first set of DOTS associations that can be		Figure 6 illustrates a first set of DOTS associations that can be
	established with a DOTS gateway is enabled in the context of the		established with a DOTS gateway is enabled in the context of the
	scenario described in Section 3.2. This deployment is characterized		scenario described in Section 4.2. This deployment is characterized
	as follows:		as follows:
	o One of more DOTS clients are enabled in hosts located in the		o One of more DOTS clients are enabled in hosts located in the
	internal network.		internal network.
	o A DOTS getaway is enabled to aggregate/relay the requests to		o A DOTS getaway is enabled to aggregate/relay the requests to
	upstream DOTS servers.		upstream DOTS servers.
	When PA addresses/prefixes are in used, the same considerations		When PA addresses/prefixes are in used, the same considerations
	discussed in Section 4.1 are to be followed by the DOTS gateway to		discussed in Section 5.1 are to be followed by the DOTS gateway to
	contact its DOTS server(s). The DOTS gateways can be reachable from		contact its DOTS server(s). The DOTS gateways can be reachable from
	DOTS client using a unicast or anycast address.		DOTS client using a unicast or anycast address.
	Nevertheless, when PI addresses/prefixes are assigned, the DOTS		Nevertheless, when PI addresses/prefixes are assigned, the DOTS
	gateway MUST sent the same request to all its DOTS servers.		gateway MUST sent the same request to all its DOTS servers.
	+--+		+--+
	-----------|S1|		-----------|S1|
	+---+ / +--+		+---+ / +--+
	| C1|----+ /		| C1|----+ /
	skipping to change at page 9, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 49 ¶
	server(s).		server(s).
	o These DOTS clients communicate directly with upstream DOTS		o These DOTS clients communicate directly with upstream DOTS
	servers.		servers.
	If PI addresses/prefixes are in use, the DOTS client can send the		If PI addresses/prefixes are in use, the DOTS client can send the
	mitigation request for all its PI addresses/prefixes to any one of		mitigation request for all its PI addresses/prefixes to any one of
	the DOTS servers. The use of anycast addresses is NOT RECOMMENDED.		the DOTS servers. The use of anycast addresses is NOT RECOMMENDED.
	If PA addresses/prefxies are used, the same considerations discussed		If PA addresses/prefxies are used, the same considerations discussed
	in Section 4.1 are to be followed by the DOTS clients. Because DOTS		in Section 5.1 are to be followed by the DOTS clients. Because DOTS
	clients are not located on the CPE and multiple addreses/prefixes may		clients are not located on the CPE and multiple addreses/prefixes may
	not be assigned to the DOTS client (IPv4 context, typically), some		not be assigned to the DOTS client (IPv4 context, typically), some
	complications arise to steer the traffic to the appropriate DOTS		complications arise to steer the traffic to the appropriate DOTS
	server using the appropriate source IP address. These complications		server using the appropriate source IP address. These complications
	discussed in [RFC4116] are not specific to DOTS .		discussed in [RFC4116] are not specific to DOTS .
	+--+		+--+
	+--------|C1|--------+		+--------|C1|--------+
	| +--+ |		| +--+ |
	+--+ +--+ +--+		+--+ +--+ +--+
	skipping to change at page 10, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 39 ¶
	+--+		+--+
	+--------|C1|		+--------|C1|
	| +--+		| +--+
	+--+ +--+ +--+		+--+ +--+ +--+
	|S2| |C2|------|S1|		|S2| |C2|------|S1|
	+--+ +--+ +--+		+--+ +--+ +--+
	Figure 8: Single Homed DOTS Clients		Figure 8: Single Homed DOTS Clients
	4.3. Multi-homed Enterprise: Multiple CPEs, Multiple Upstream ISPs		5.3. Multi-homed Enterprise: Multiple CPEs, Multiple Upstream ISPs
	The deployments depicted in Figure 7 and Figure 8 apply also for the		The deployments depicted in Figure 7 and Figure 8 apply also for the
	scenario described in Section 3.3. One specific problem for this		scenario described in Section 4.3. One specific problem for this
	scenario is to select the appropriate exit router when contacting a		scenario is to select the appropriate exit router when contacting a
	given DOTS server.		given DOTS server.
	An alternative deployment scheme is shown in Figure 9:		An alternative deployment scheme is shown in Figure 9:
	o DOTS clients are enabled in hosts located in the internal network.		o DOTS clients are enabled in hosts located in the internal network.
	o A DOTS gateway is enabled in each CPE (rtr1, rtr2).		o A DOTS gateway is enabled in each CPE (rtr1, rtr2).
	o Each of these DOTS gateways communicate with the DOTS server of		o Each of these DOTS gateways communicate with the DOTS server of
	skipping to change at page 11, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 38 ¶
	+--+ +-+-+ +---+ +-+-+ +--+		+--+ +-+-+ +---+ +-+-+ +--+
	|S2|------|G2 |------| C3|------|G1 |------|S1|		|S2|------|G2 |------| C3|------|G1 |------|S1|
	+--+ +-+-+ +---+ +-+-+ +--+		+--+ +-+-+ +---+ +-+-+ +--+
	| +---+ |		| +---+ |
	+------------| C2|----+		+------------| C2|----+
	+---+		+---+
	Figure 9: Multiple DOTS Clients, Multiple DOTS Gateways, Multiple		Figure 9: Multiple DOTS Clients, Multiple DOTS Gateways, Multiple
	DOTS Servers		DOTS Servers
	4.4. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single ISP		5.4. Multi-homed Enterprise: Single ISP
	The key difference of the scenario described in Section 3.4 compared		The key difference of the scenario described in Section 4.4 compared
	to the other scenarios is that multi-homing is provided by the same		to the other scenarios is that multi-homing is provided by the same
	ISP. Concretely, that ISP can decided to provision the enterprise		ISP. Concretely, that ISP can decided to provision the enterprise
	network with:		network with:
	1. The same DOTS server for all network attachments.		1. The same DOTS server for all network attachments.
	2. Distinct DOTS servers for each network attachment. These DOTS		2. Distinct DOTS servers for each network attachment. These DOTS
	servers needs to coordinate when a mitigation action is received		servers needs to coordinate when a mitigation action is received
	from the enterprise network.		from the enterprise network.
	In both cases, DOTS agents enabled within the enterprise network may		In both cases, DOTS agents enabled within the enterprise network may
	decide to select one or all network attachments to place DOTS		decide to select one or all network attachments to place DOTS
	mitigation requests.		mitigation requests.
	5. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	DOTS-related security considerations are discussed in Section 4 of		DOTS-related security considerations are discussed in Section 4 of
	[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture].		[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture].
	TBD: In Home networks, if EST is used then how will the DOTS gateway		TBD: In Home networks, if EST is used then how will the DOTS gateway
	(EST client) be provisioned with credentials for initial enrolment		(EST client) be provisioned with credentials for initial enrolment
	(see Section 2.2 in RFC 7030).		(see Section 2.2 in RFC 7030).
	6. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	This document does not require any action from IANA.		This document does not require any action from IANA.
	7. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	Thanks to Roland Dobbins and Nik Teague for sharing their comments on		Thanks to Roland Dobbins and Nik Teague for sharing their comments on
	the mailing list.		the mailing list.
	Thanks to Kirill Kasavchenko for the comments.		Thanks to Kirill Kasavchenko for the comments.
	8. References		9. References
	8.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture]		[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture]
	Mortensen, A., Andreasen, F., Reddy, T.,		Mortensen, A., Andreasen, F., K, R.,
	christopher_gray3@cable.comcast.com, c., Compton, R., and		christopher_gray3@cable.comcast.com, c., Compton, R., and
	N. Teague, "Distributed-Denial-of-Service Open Threat		N. Teague, "Distributed-Denial-of-Service Open Threat
	Signaling (DOTS) Architecture", draft-ietf-dots-		Signaling (DOTS) Architecture", draft-ietf-dots-
	architecture-06 (work in progress), March 2018.		architecture-07 (work in progress), September 2018.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,		[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
	"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6		"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
	(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,		(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
	8.2. Informative References		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
			9.2. Informative References
	[I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discovery]		[I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discovery]
	Boucadair, M., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "Distributed-		Boucadair, M., K, R., and P. Patil, "Distributed-Denial-
	Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Server		of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Server Discovery",
	Discovery", draft-boucadair-dots-server-discovery-03 (work		draft-boucadair-dots-server-discovery-04 (work in
	in progress), October 2017.		progress), April 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel]		[I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel]
	Reddy, T., Boucadair, M., Nishizuka, K., Xia, L., Patil,		Boucadair, M., K, R., Nishizuka, K., Xia, L., Patil, P.,
	P., Mortensen, A., and N. Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-		Mortensen, A., and N. Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-
	Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel		Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel
	Specification", draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-14 (work in		Specification", draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-22 (work in
	progress), March 2018.		progress), September 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]		[I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]
	Reddy, T., Boucadair, M., Patil, P., Mortensen, A., and N.		K, R., Boucadair, M., Patil, P., Mortensen, A., and N.
	Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat		Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
	Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", draft-		Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", draft-
	ietf-dots-signal-channel-18 (work in progress), March		ietf-dots-signal-channel-25 (work in progress), September
	2018.		2018.
	[I-D.ietf-dots-use-cases]		[I-D.ietf-dots-use-cases]
	Dobbins, R., Migault, D., Fouant, S., Moskowitz, R.,		Dobbins, R., Migault, D., Fouant, S., Moskowitz, R.,
	Teague, N., Xia, L., and K. Nishizuka, "Use cases for DDoS		Teague, N., Xia, L., and K. Nishizuka, "Use cases for DDoS
	Open Threat Signaling", draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-11 (work		Open Threat Signaling", draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-16 (work
	in progress), March 2018.		in progress), July 2018.
	[RFC3582] Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-		[RFC3582] Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
	Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582,		Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3582, August 2003,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3582, August 2003,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3582>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3582>.
	[RFC4116] Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., and V.		[RFC4116] Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., and V.
	Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations",		Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations",
	RFC 4116, DOI 10.17487/RFC4116, July 2005,		RFC 4116, DOI 10.17487/RFC4116, July 2005,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4116>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4116>.
End of changes. 43 change blocks.
	68 lines changed or deleted		74 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/