| < draft-wei-nvo3-security-framework-00.txt | draft-wei-nvo3-security-framework-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nvo3 Y. Wei, Ed. | NV03 Working Group Y. Wei, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft S. Zhang | Internet Draft ZTE Corporation | |||
| Intended status: Informational ZTE Corporation | Intended status: Informational L. Fang, Ed. | |||
| Expires: December 22, 2012 June 20, 2012 | Expires: January 16, 2013 Cisco Systems | |||
| S. Zhang | ||||
| ZTE Corporation | ||||
| NVO3 Security Framework | July 16, 2012 | |||
| draft-wei-nvo3-security-framework-00 | ||||
| NVO3 Security Framework | ||||
| draft-wei-nvo3-security-framework-01 | ||||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document provides a security framework for overlay based network | This document provides a security framework for overlay based | |||
| virtualization. It describes the security reference model, the | network virtualization. It describes the security reference model, | |||
| security threats and security requirements. | the security threats and security requirements. | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | the 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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://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 | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | at any 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 December 22, 2012. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2013. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| NVO3 Security Framework | ||||
| Expires Jan. 2013 | ||||
| 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 | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://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 | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction .................................................2 | |||
| 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2 | |||
| 3. Security Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Terminologies ................................................3 | |||
| 4. Security Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3 | |||
| 4.1. Attacks on Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3. Security Reference Models ....................................5 | |||
| 4.2. Attacks on Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 5 | |||
| 5. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.1. Scenario 1: Virtual Network and DC infrastructure belong to | |||
| 5.1. Control Plane Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | the same DC operator ............................................5 | |||
| 5.2. Data Plane Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 5 | |||
| 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4. Security Threats .............................................6 | |||
| 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 6 | |||
| 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.1. Attacks on Control Plane ..................................7 | |||
| 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 7 | |||
| 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.2. Attacks on the Data Plane .................................7 | |||
| 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 7 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 5. Security Requirements ........................................8 | |||
| 8 | ||||
| 5.1. Control Plane Security Requirements .......................8 | ||||
| 8 | ||||
| 5.2. Data Plane Security Requirements ..........................8 | ||||
| 8 | ||||
| 6. Security Considerations ......................................8 | ||||
| 8 | ||||
| 7. IANA Considerations ..........................................9 | ||||
| 9 | ||||
| 8. Normative References .........................................9 | ||||
| 9 | ||||
| 9. Informative References .......................................9 | ||||
| 9 | ||||
| 10. Author's Addresses ........................................10 | ||||
| 10 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | Requirements Language | |||
| Security is one of important factors in the envrionment of cloud | Although this document is not a protocol specification, the key | |||
| computing. This issue should be addressed for the overlay based | words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| network virtualization, which supports multi-tenancy in data center. | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in | |||
| this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC | ||||
| Security considerations have already been provided in each of the | 1. Introduction | |||
| individual document on framework, control plane and data plane | NVO3 Security Framework | |||
| requirements of data center network virtualization over Layer | Expires Jan. 2013 | |||
| 3(NVO3). [I-D.lasserre-nvo3-framework] describes that the tenant to | ||||
| overlay mapping function can introduce significant security risks if | ||||
| appropriate security mechanisms are not used for protocol. | ||||
| [I-D.kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp] describes that the protocol should | ||||
| protect the integrity of the mapping, and overlay exposes virtual | ||||
| networks to attacks on the underlying network such as traffic | ||||
| injection. [I-D.bitar-lasserre-nvo3-dp-reqs] also describes the | ||||
| security risks of the tenant to overlay mapping function. | ||||
| Security is one of most important factors in the environment of | ||||
| cloud computing and particularly to the Data Center Network | ||||
| Virtualization where multi-tenancy support is one of the fundamental | ||||
| requirements. | ||||
| Though security considerations are provided in several individual | ||||
| documents, a general description of security for NVO3 is needed, | ||||
| especially there are areas not covered in the current documents. | ||||
| The motivation of this document is to provide a general and | The motivation of this document is to provide a general and | |||
| consistent security description for NVO3, and to complement with | consistent security framework for NVO3, and to provide a guidance | |||
| security considerations in the current documents. This document is | for the design of related protocol. | |||
| organized as follows. Section 3 describes the security reference | ||||
| model for NVO3. Section 4 describes the security threats under the | ||||
| security model. Section 5 addresses the security requirements | ||||
| corresponding to the security issues. | ||||
| 2. Terminology | This document is organized as follows. Section 3 describes the | |||
| security reference model in the context of NVO3, which defines which | ||||
| component is trusted or not for a particular scenario. Section 4 | ||||
| describes the security threats under the security model. Section 5 | ||||
| addresses the security requirements in response to the security | ||||
| threats. | ||||
| This document introduces no new terminology. For reader's | 2. Terminologies | |||
| convenience, this document repeats some of them defined in | ||||
| [I-D.lasserre-nvo3-framework] [I-D.kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp] | ||||
| [I-D.bitar-lasserre-nvo3-dp-reqs]. | ||||
| Tenant End System(TES): An end system of a tenant, which can be for | This document uses NVO3 specific terminology defined in [I- | |||
| instance a virtual machine(VM), a non-virtualized server, or a | D.lasserre-nvo3-framework]. For reader's convenience, this | |||
| physical appliance. A TES attaches to Network Virtualization | document repeats some of the definitions in addition to reference | |||
| Edge(NVE) node. | it. | |||
| Network Virtualization Edge(NVE): An NVE implements network | NVE: Network Virtualization Edge. It is a network entity that sits | |||
| virtualization functions that allow for L2/L3 tenant separation, | on the edge of the NVO3 network. It implements network | |||
| tenant-related control plane activity. An NVE contains one or more | virtualization functions that allow for L2 and/or L3 tenant | |||
| tenant service instances whereby a TES interfaces with its associated | separation and for hiding tenant addressing information (MAC and IP | |||
| instance. The NVE also provides tunneling overlay functions. | addresses). An NVE could be implemented as part of a virtual switch | |||
| within a hypervisor, a physical switch or router, a Network Service | ||||
| Appliance or even be embedded within an End Station. | ||||
| Virtual Network(VN): This is one of a virtual overlay network. Two | VN: Virtual Network. This is a virtual L2 or L3 domain that belongs | |||
| Virtual Networks are isolated from one another. | a tenant. | |||
| Overlay Boundary Point(OBP): This is a network entity that is on the | VNI: Virtual Network Instance. This is one instance of a virtual | |||
| edge boundary of the overlay. It performs encapsulation to send | overlay network. Two Virtual Networks are isolated from one another | |||
| packets to other OBPs across Underling Network for decapsulation. | and may use overlapping addresses. | |||
| Underlying Network(UN): This is the network that provides the | Virtual Network Context or VN Context: Field that is part of the | |||
| connectivity between the OBPs. | overlay encapsulation header which allows the encapsulated frame to | |||
| be delivered to the appropriate virtual network endpoint by the | ||||
| egress NVE. The egress NVE uses this field to determine the | ||||
| appropriate virtual network context in which to process the packet. | ||||
| This field MAY be an explicit, unique (to the administrative | ||||
| domain) virtual network identifier (VNID) or MAY express the | ||||
| NVO3 Security Framework | ||||
| Expires Jan. 2013 | ||||
| 3. Security Reference Model | necessary context information in other ways (e.g. a locally | |||
| significant identifier). | ||||
| This section defines security reference model for Overlay based | VNID: Virtual Network Identifier. In the case where the VN context | |||
| Network Virtualization. | has global significance, this is the ID value that is carried in | |||
| each data packet in the overlay encapsulation that identifies the | ||||
| Virtual Network the packet belongs to. | ||||
| Underlay or Underlying Network: This is the network that provides | ||||
| the connectivity between NVEs. The Underlying Network can be | ||||
| completely unaware of the overlay packets. Addresses within the | ||||
| Underlying Network are also referred to as "outer addresses" | ||||
| because they exist in the outer encapsulation. The Underlying | ||||
| Network can use a completely different protocol (and address | ||||
| family) from that of the overlay. | ||||
| Data Center (DC): A physical complex housing physical servers, | ||||
| network switches and routers, Network Service Appliances and | ||||
| networked storage. The purpose of a Data Center is to provide | ||||
| application and/or compute and/or storage services. One such | ||||
| service is virtualized data center services, also known as | ||||
| Infrastructure as a Service. | ||||
| Virtual Data Center or Virtual DC: A container for virtualized | ||||
| compute, storage and network services. Managed by a single tenant, | ||||
| a Virtual DC can contain multiple VNs and multiple Tenant End | ||||
| Systems that are connected to one or more of these VNs. | ||||
| VM: Virtual Machine. Several Virtual Machines can share the | ||||
| resources of a single physical computer server using the services | ||||
| of a Hypervisor (see below definition). | ||||
| Hypervisor: Server virtualization software running on a physical | ||||
| compute server that hosts Virtual Machines. The hypervisor provides | ||||
| shared compute/memory/storage and network connectivity to the VMs | ||||
| that it hosts. Hypervisors often embed a Virtual Switch (see | ||||
| below). | ||||
| Virtual Switch: A function within a Hypervisor (typically | ||||
| implemented in software) that provides similar services to a | ||||
| physical Ethernet switch. It switches Ethernet frames between VMs' | ||||
| virtual NICs within the same physical server, or between a VM and a | ||||
| physical NIC card connecting the server to a physical Ethernet | ||||
| switch. It also enforces network isolation between VMs that should | ||||
| not communicate with each other. | ||||
| Tenant: A customer who consumes virtualized data center services | ||||
| offered by a cloud service provider. A single tenant may consume | ||||
| NVO3 Security Framework | ||||
| Expires Jan. 2013 | ||||
| one or more Virtual Data Centers hosted by the same cloud service | ||||
| provider. | ||||
| Tenant End System: It defines an end system of a particular tenant, | ||||
| which can be for instance a virtual machine (VM), a non-virtualized | ||||
| server, or a physical appliance. | ||||
| 3. Security Reference Models | ||||
| This section defines the security reference models for Overlay | ||||
| based Network Virtualization. | ||||
| The L3 overlay network provides virtual network to multi-tenants, | The L3 overlay network provides virtual network to multi-tenants, | |||
| which is deployed on the underlying network. The tenant end system | which is deployed on the underlying network. The tenant end system | |||
| attaches to the L3 overlay network. | attaches to the L3 overlay network. | |||
| L3 overlay network provides isolation to each tenant, which provides | L3 overlay network provides isolation to each tenant, which | |||
| security to its tenant. L3 overlay network can be regarded secure | provides a level of security to its tenant. L3 overlay network can | |||
| zone from the view of ONV3 operator. Other components outside of the | be regarded secure zone from the view of ONV3 operator. Other | |||
| ONV3 are considered as untrusted, which may impose some attacks on | components outside of the ONV3 are considered as untrusted, which | |||
| the ONV3. On the other hand, each virtual network may not trust | may impose security risk to the NVO3 networks. Each virtual | |||
| other virtual network. This model is the basis to analyze the | network should assume not trusting other virtual networks. This | |||
| security of ONV3. | model is the basis to analyze the security of ONV3. | |||
| +------------------------------------+ | 3.1. Scenario 1: Virtual Network and DC infrastructure | |||
| | Trusted | | belong to the same DC operator | |||
| | +--------------------+ | | ||||
| | |+------------------+| | | ||||
| | || Virtual Network 1|| | | ||||
| | |+------------------+| | | ||||
| +----------+ | +-----++------------------++-----+ | | ||||
| |Tenant End| | | || Virtual Network 2|| | | +----------+ | ||||
| | System +----+ NV |+------------------+| NV | | |Tenant End| | ||||
| +----------+ | |Edge |+------------------+| Edge+----+ System | | ||||
| | | || Virtual Network 3|| | | +----------+ | ||||
| Untrusted | +-----++------------------++-----+ | | ||||
| | | L3 Overlay Network | | Untrusted | ||||
| | | | | | ||||
| | +--+---------------+-+ | | ||||
| | | Overlay | | | ||||
| | | Boundary Point| | | ||||
| | +-------+-------+ | | ||||
| +------------------|-----------------+ | ||||
| | | ||||
| +----------+---------+ | ||||
| | Underlying Network | Untrusted | ||||
| +--------------------+ | ||||
| Figure 1: Security Reference Model for Overlay based Network | |<-----------(Trusted)---------->| | |||
| Virtualization | | | | |||
| | /---------------------------\ | | ||||
| ++ Virtual Network L3 Overlay ++ | ||||
| | \---------------------------/ | | ||||
| +----------+ +--+------+ +-----------+ +-------+-+ +----------+ | ||||
| |Tenant End| | NV | | DC infra | | NV | |Tenant End| | ||||
| | System +-+ Edge +--+ Underlay +--+ Edge +-+ System | | ||||
| | (TES) | | (NVE) | | Network | | (NVE) | | (TES) | | ||||
| +----------+ +---------+ +-----------+ +---------+ +----------+ | ||||
| |<---------->|<-------->|<------------>|<--------->|<---------->| | ||||
| |(Untrusted) | (Trusted)| (Trusted) | (Trusted) |(Untrusted) | | ||||
| 4. Security Threats | Figure 1. Trust Model for Scenario 1 | |||
| This section describes the various security threats that may endanger | NVO3 Security Framework | |||
| overlay based network virtualization. For example, an attack on ONV3 | Expires Jan. 2013 | |||
| may result in some unexpected effects: | ||||
| o Interrupt the connectivity of tenant's virtual network. | Notes: | |||
| o Inject some unwanted traffic into virtual network. | ||||
| o Eavesdrop sensitive information from tenant. | 1) The diagram is a logical illustration. The TES and NVE may be | |||
| o Degrade provider's service level. | implemented in the same physical device, or separate devices. | |||
| 2) The physical end system may in reality include virtual | ||||
| switching/routing instances and multiple VMs (TESs) belong to | ||||
| different tenants. | ||||
| 3) The trusted or untrusted notions in the diagram is from a Virtual | ||||
| Overlay Network point of view, not the underlay network. | ||||
| 4) Each VN treats other VNs as untrusted. | ||||
| Scenario 2: Virtual Network and DC infrastructure belong to | ||||
| different DC operators | ||||
| |<-----------(Trusted)---------->| | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | /---------------------------\ | | ||||
| ++ Virtual Network L3 Overlay ++ | ||||
| | \---------------------------/ | | ||||
| +----------+ +--+------+ +-----------+ +-------+-+ +----------+ | ||||
| |Tenant End| | NV | | DC infra | | NV | |Tenant End| | ||||
| | System +-+ Edge +--+ Underlay +--+ Edge +-+ System | | ||||
| | (TES) | | (NVE) | | Network | | (NVE) | | (TES) | | ||||
| +----------+ +---------+ +-----------+ +---------+ +----------+ | ||||
| |<---------->|<-------->|<------------>|<--------->|<---------->| | ||||
| |(Untrusted) | (Trusted)| (Untrusted) | (Trusted) |(Untrusted) | | ||||
| Figure 2. Trust Model for Scenario 2 | ||||
| The same notes listed under scenario 1 also apply here. | ||||
| 4. Security Threats | ||||
| This section describes the various security threats that may | ||||
| endanger overlay based network virtualization. For example, an | ||||
| attack on ONV3 may result in some unexpected effects: | ||||
| o Interrupt the connectivity of tenant's virtual network. | ||||
| o Inject some unwanted traffic into virtual network. | ||||
| o Eavesdrop sensitive information from tenant. | ||||
| o Degrade provider's service level. | ||||
| NVO3 Security Framework | ||||
| Expires Jan. 2013 | ||||
| Security threats may be malicious or casual. For example, some of | Security threats may be malicious or casual. For example, some of | |||
| them may come from the following sources: | them may come from the following sources: | |||
| o A tenant who rents one or more virtual networks may want to | o A tenant who rents one or more virtual networks may want to | |||
| acquire some information from other tenants co-existed in the same | acquire some information from other tenants co-existed in the same | |||
| data center. | data center. | |||
| o Some persons who manipulate the activation, migration or | o Some persons who manipulate the activation, migration or | |||
| deactivation of tenant's virtual machine. | deactivation of tenant's virtual machine. | |||
| o Some persons who physically access to underlying network. | ||||
| o Some persons who phyically access to underlying network. | 4.1. Attacks on Control Plane | |||
| 4.1. Attacks on Control Plane | 1. Attack association between VM and VN: one of the | |||
| functionalities of ONV3 is to provide virtual network to multi- | ||||
| tenants. ONV3 associates a virtual machine's NIC with corresponding | ||||
| virtual network, and maintain that association as the VM is | ||||
| activated, migrated or deactivated. The signaling information | ||||
| between endpoint and access switch may be spoofed or altered. Thus | ||||
| the association between VM and VN may be invalid if the signaling | ||||
| is not properly protected. | ||||
| 1. Attack association between VM and VN: one of the functionalities | 2. Attack the mapping of a virtual network: The mapping between | |||
| of ONV3 is to provide virtual network to multi-tenants. ONV3 | the inner and outer addresses may be affected through altering the | |||
| associates a virtual machine's NIC with corresponding virtual | mapping table. | |||
| network, and maintain that association as the VM is activated, | ||||
| migrated or deactivated. The signalling information between | ||||
| endpoint and access switch may be spoofed or altered. Thus the | ||||
| association between VM and VN may be invalid if the signaling is | ||||
| not properly protected. | ||||
| 2. Attack the mapping of a virtual network: The mapping between the | ||||
| inter and outer addresses may be affected through altering the | ||||
| mapping table. | ||||
| 3. Inject traffic: The comprised underlying network may inject | ||||
| traffic into virtual network. | ||||
| 4. Attack live migration: An attacker may cause guest VMs to be live | ||||
| migrated to the attacker's machine and gain full control over | ||||
| guest VMs[VM-Migration]. | ||||
| 5. Denial of Service attacks against endpoint by false resource | ||||
| advertising: for live migration are initiated automatically to | ||||
| distribute load across a number of servers, an attacker may | ||||
| falsely advertise available resources via the control plane. By | ||||
| pretending to have a large number of spare CPU cycles, that | ||||
| attacker may be able to influence the control plane to migrate a | ||||
| VM to a compromised endpoint. | ||||
| 4.2. Attacks on Data Plane | 3. Inject traffic: The comprised underlying network may inject | |||
| traffic into virtual network. | ||||
| 1. Unauthorized snooping of data traffic: This is attack results in | 4. Attack live migration: An attacker may cause guest VMs to be | |||
| leakage of sensitive information, an attacker can sniffer | live migrated to the attacker's machine and gain full control over | |||
| information from the user packets and extract their content. | guest VMs. | |||
| 2. Modification of data traffic: An attacker may modify, insert or | ||||
| delete data packets and impersonate them as legitimate ones. | ||||
| 3. Man-in-the-Middle attack on live migration of VM: When a virtual | ||||
| machine is migrated from one endpoint to another, the VM may be | ||||
| intercepted and modified in the middle of the migration. | ||||
| 5. Security Requirements | 5. Denial of Service attacks against endpoint by false resource | |||
| advertising: for live migration initiated automatically to | ||||
| distribute load across a number of servers, an attacker may falsely | ||||
| advertise available resources via the control plane. By pretending | ||||
| to have a large number of spare CPU cycles, that attacker may be | ||||
| able to influence the control plane to migrate a VM to a | ||||
| compromised endpoint. | ||||
| 4.2. Attacks on the Data Plane | ||||
| 1. Unauthorized snooping of data traffic: This is attack | ||||
| results in leakage of sensitive information, attacker can sniffer | ||||
| information from the user packets and extract their content. | ||||
| NVO3 Security Framework | ||||
| Expires Jan. 2013 | ||||
| 2. Modification of data traffic: An attacker may modify, insert | ||||
| or delete data packets and impersonate them as legitimate ones. | ||||
| 3. Man-in-the-Middle attack on live migration of VM: When a | ||||
| virtual machine is migrated from one endpoint to another, the VM | ||||
| may be intercepted and modified in the middle of the migration. | ||||
| 5. Security Requirements | ||||
| This section describes security requirements for control plane and | This section describes security requirements for control plane and | |||
| data plane of NVO3. | data plane of NVO3. | |||
| 5.1. Control Plane Security Requirements | 5.1. Control Plane Security Requirements | |||
| 1. The network infrastructure shall support mechanisms for | 1. The network infrastructure shall support mechanisms for | |||
| authentication and integrity protection of the control plane. | authentication and integrity protection of the control | |||
| (1)When a protocol is used for the service auto-provisioning/ | plane. (1)When a protocol is used for the service auto- | |||
| discovery, the information from endpoint shall not be spoofed or | provisioning/discovery, the information from endpoint shall | |||
| altered. (2)When a protocol is used to distribute address | not be spoofed or altered. (2)When a protocol is used to | |||
| advertisement and tunneling information, the protocol shall | distribute address advertisement and tunneling information, | |||
| provide integrity protection. (3)The protocol for tunnel | the protocol shall provide integrity protection. (3)The | |||
| management shall provide integrity and authentication protection. | protocol for tunnel management shall provide integrity and | |||
| 2. NVEs shall assure the information in the mapping table is coming | authentication protection. | |||
| from a trusted source. | 2. NVEs shall assure the information in the mapping table is | |||
| 3. The virtual network should prevent malformed traffic injection | coming from a trusted source. | |||
| from underlying network, other virtual network, or endpoint. | 3. The virtual network should prevent malformed traffic | |||
| injection from underlying network, other virtual network, or | ||||
| endpoint. | ||||
| 5.2. Data Plane Security Requirements | 5.2. Data Plane Security Requirements | |||
| 1. The mapping function from the tenant to overlay shall be | 1. The mapping function from the tenant to overlay shall be | |||
| protected. NVEs should verify VNID is not spoofed. | protected. NVEs should verify VNID is not spoofed. | |||
| 2. The data plane should protect VM's state against snooping and | 2. The data plane should protect VM's state against snooping | |||
| tampering. | and tampering. | |||
| 3. IPsec can provide authentication, integrity and confidentiality | 3. IPsec can be used to provide authentication, integrity and | |||
| protection. IPsec can be used to protect the data plane. | confidentiality protection. IPsec can be used to protect | |||
| the data plane. | ||||
| 6. Acknowledgements | 6. Security Considerations | |||
| NVO3 Security Framework | ||||
| Expires Jan. 2013 | ||||
| We invite more feedbacks and contributors. | This document discusses general security threats and requirements | |||
| for NVO3. Individual document may raise specific issues based on the | ||||
| particular content and should address them in the individual | ||||
| document. | ||||
| 7. IANA Considerations | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
| IANA does not need to take any action for this draft. | This document contains no new IANA considerations. | |||
| 8. Security Considerations | 8. Normative References | |||
| TODO | 9. Informative References | |||
| 9. References | [Editors' note: All Network Virtualization with Layer 3 (NVO3) | |||
| Internet drafts or related ID(s) referenced in the following list | ||||
| are currently work in progress individual drafts in their early | ||||
| development stage, status and text are subject to change, more | ||||
| reference may be added along with the development of the NVO3 WG.] | ||||
| 9.1. Normative References | [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | ||||
| [I-D.lasserre-nvo3-framework] | [RFC4111] Fang, L., Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for | |||
| Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and Y. | Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)", RFC 4111, | |||
| Rekhter, "Framework for DC Network Virtualization", | July 2005. | |||
| draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 (work in progress), | ||||
| June 2012. | ||||
| [I-D.kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp] | [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS | |||
| Black, D., Dutt, D., Kreeger, L., Sridhavan, M., and T. | Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. | |||
| Narten, "Network Virtualization Overlay Control Protocol | ||||
| Requirements", draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-00 (work in | ||||
| progress), January 2012. | ||||
| [I-D.bitar-lasserre-nvo3-dp-reqs] | [opsec-efforts] Lonvick, C., and Spak, D., "Security Best Practices | |||
| Bitar, N., Lasserre, M., and F. Balus, "NVO3 Data Plane | Efforts and Documents", IETF draft-ietf-opsec-efforts-18.txt, April | |||
| Requirements", draft-bitar-lasserre-nvo3-dp-reqs-00 (work | 2012. | |||
| in progress), May 2012. | ||||
| 9.2. Informative References | [VM-Migration] Oberheide, Jon., Cooke, Evan., and Farnam. Jahanian, | |||
| "Empirical Exploitation of Live Virtual Machine Migration", Feb | ||||
| 2011. | ||||
| [VM-Migration] | [I-D.narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement] Narten, T., Sridhavan, | |||
| Oberheide, Jon., Cooke, Evan., and Farnam. Jahanian, | M., Dutt, D., Black, D., and L. Kreeger, "Problem Statement: | |||
| "Empirical Exploitation of Live Virtual Machine | Overlays for Network Virtualization", draft-narten-nvo3-overlay- | |||
| Migration", Feb 2011. | problem-statement-02 (work in progress), June 2012. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | [I-D.fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement] Napierala M., Fang L., Cai, | |||
| Dennis, "IP-VPN Data Center Problem Statement and Requirements", | ||||
| draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement-01.txt, June 2012. | ||||
| Yinxing Wei (editor) | NVO3 Security Framework | |||
| Expires Jan. 2013 | ||||
| [I-D.lasserre-nvo3-framework] Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., | ||||
| Bitar, N., and Y.Rekhter, "Framework for DC Network | ||||
| Virtualization", draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-03 (work in | ||||
| progress), July 2012. | ||||
| [I-D.kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp] Black, D., Dutt, D., Kreeger, L., | ||||
| Sridhavan, M., and T. Narten, "Network Virtualization Overlay | ||||
| Control Protocol Requirements", draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-00 | ||||
| (work in progress), January 2012. | ||||
| [I-D.bitar-lasserre-nvo3-dp-reqs] Bitar, N., Lasserre, M., and F. | ||||
| Balus, "NVO3 Data Plane Requirements", draft-bitar-lasserre-nvo3- | ||||
| dp-reqs-00 (work in progress), May 2012. | ||||
| 10. Author's Addresses | ||||
| Yinxing Wei (Editor) | ||||
| ZTE Corporation | ZTE Corporation | |||
| No 68, Zijinghua Road | No 68, Zijinghua Road | |||
| Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 | Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 | |||
| China | China | |||
| Phone: +86 25 52872328 | Phone: +86 25 52872328 | |||
| Email: wei.yinxing@zte.com.cn | Email: wei.yinxing@zte.com.cn | |||
| Luyuan Fang (Editor) | ||||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | ||||
| 111 Wood Ave. South | ||||
| Iselin, NJ 08830 | ||||
| USA | ||||
| Email: lufang@cisco.com | ||||
| Shiwei Zhang | Shiwei Zhang | |||
| ZTE Corporation | ZTE Corporation | |||
| No 68, Zijinghua Road | No 68, Zijinghua Road | |||
| Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 | Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 | |||
| China | China | |||
| Phone: +86 25 52870100 | Phone: +86 25 52870100 | |||
| Email: zhang.shiwei@zte.com.cn | Email: zhang.shiwei@zte.com.cn | |||
| End of changes. 56 change blocks. | ||||
| 211 lines changed or deleted | 372 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/ | ||||