idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (April 12, 2017) is 2533 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'I-D.meyer-lisp-mn' is defined on line 336, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-00 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Farinacci 3 Internet-Draft lispers.net 4 Intended status: Experimental P. Pillay-Esnault 5 Expires: October 14, 2017 Huawei Technologies 6 W. Haddad 7 Ericsson 8 April 12, 2017 10 LISP EID Anonymity 11 draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 13 Abstract 15 This specification will describe how ephemeral LISP EIDs can be used 16 to create source anonymity. The idea makes use of frequently 17 changing EIDs much like how a credit-card system uses a different 18 credit-card numbers for each transaction. 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 24 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 14, 2017. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 4. Design Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5. Other Types of Ephemeral-EIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 6. Interworking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 7. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 8. Performance Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 . . . . 8 76 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 . . . . 8 77 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . 8 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 80 1. Introduction 82 The LISP architecture [RFC6830] specifies two namespaces, End-Point 83 IDs (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). An EID identifies a node in 84 the network and the RLOC indicates the EID's topological location. 85 Typically EIDs are globally unique so a end-node system can connect 86 to any other end-node system on the Internet. Privately used EIDs 87 are allowed when scoped within a VPN but must always be unique within 88 that scope. Therefore, address allocation is required by network 89 administration to avoid address collisions or duplicate address use. 90 In a multiple namespace architecture like LISP, typically the EID 91 will stay fixed while the RLOC can change. This occurs when the EID 92 is mobile or when the LISP site the EID resides in changes its 93 connection to the Internet. 95 LISP creates the opportunity where EIDs are fixed and won't change. 96 This can create a privacy problem more so than what we have on the 97 Internet today. This draft will examine a technique to allow a end- 98 node system to use a temporary address. The lifetime of a temporary 99 address can be the same as a lifetime of an address in use today on 100 the Internet or can have traditionally shorter lifetimes, possibly on 101 the order of a day or even change as frequent as new connection 102 attempts. 104 2. Definition of Terms 106 Ephemeral-EID - is an IP address that is created randomly for use 107 for a temporary period of time. An Ephemeral-EID has all the 108 properties of an EID as defined in [RFC6830]. Ephemeral-EIDs are 109 not stored in the Domain Name System (DNS) and should not be used 110 in long-term address referrals. 112 Client End-Node - is a network node that originates and consumes 113 packets. It is a system that originates packets or initiates the 114 establishment of transport-layer connections. It does not offer 115 services as a server system would. It accesses servers and 116 attempts to do it anonymously. 118 3. Overview 120 A client end-node can assign its own ephemeral EID and use it to talk 121 to any system on the Internet. The system is acting as a client 122 where it initiates communication and desires to be an inaccessible 123 resource from any other system. The ephemeral EID is used as a 124 destination address solely to return packets to resources the 125 ephemeral EID connects to. 127 Here is the procedure a client end-node would use: 129 1. Client end-node desires to talk on the network. It creates and 130 assigns an ephemeral-EID on any interface. 132 2. If the client end-node is a LISP xTR, it will register the 133 ephemeral-EID with a globally routable RLOC. If the client end- 134 node is not a LISP xTR, it can send packets on the network where 135 a LISP router xTR will register the ephemeral-EID with its RLOC. 137 3. The client end-node originates packets with a source address 138 equal to the ephemeral-EID and will receive packets addressed to 139 the ephemeral-EID. 141 4. When the client end-node decides to stop using the ephemeral-EID, 142 it will deregister it from the mapping system and create and 143 assign a new ephemeral-EID, or decide to configure a static 144 global address, or participate in DHCP to get assigned a leased 145 address. 147 Note that the ephemeral-EID can be mobile just like any other EID so 148 if it is initially registered to the mapping system with one or more 149 RLOCs, later the RLOC-set can change as the ephemeral-EID roams. 151 4. Design Details 153 This specification proposes the use of the experimental LISP EID- 154 block 2001:5::/32 when IPv6 is used. See IANA Considerations section 155 for a specific sub-block allocation request. When IPv4 is used, the 156 Class E block 240.0.0.0/4 is being proposed. 158 The client end-node system will use the rest of the host bits to 159 allocate a random number to be used as the ephemeral-EID. The EID 160 can be created manually or via a programatic interface. When the EID 161 address is going to change frequently, it is suggested to use a 162 programatic interface. The probability of address collision is 163 unlikely for IPv6 EIDs but could occur for IPv4 EIDs. A client end- 164 node can create a ephemeral-EID and then look it up in the mapping 165 system to see if it exists. If the EID exists in the mapping system, 166 the client end-node can attempt creation of a new random number for 167 the ephemeral-EID. See Section 8 where ephemeral-EIDs can be 168 preallocated and registered to the mapping system before use. 170 When the client end-node system is co-located with the RLOC and acts 171 as an xTR, it should register the binding before sending packets. 172 This eliminates a race condition for returning packets not knowing 173 where to encapsulate packets to the ephemeral-EID's RLOCs. See 174 Section 8 for alternatives for fixing this race condition problem. 175 When the client end-node system is not acting as an xTR, it should 176 send some packets so its ephemeral-EID can be discovered by an xTR 177 which supports EID-mobility [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] so 178 mapping system registration can occur before the destination returns 179 packets. When the end-node system is acting as an xTR, the EID and 180 RLOC-set is co-located in the same node. So when the EID is created, 181 the xTR can register the mapping versus waiting for packet 182 transmission. 184 5. Other Types of Ephemeral-EIDs 186 When IPv6 Ephemeral-EIDs are used, an alternative to a random number 187 can be used. For example, the low-order bits of the IPv6 address 188 could be a cryptographic hash of a public-key. Mechanisms from 189 [RFC3972] could be used for EIDs. Using this approach allows the 190 sender with a hashed EID to be authenticated. So packet signatures 191 can be verified by the corresponding public-key. When hashed EIDs 192 are used, the EID can change frequently as rekeying may be required 193 for enhanced security. 195 6. Interworking Considerations 197 If a client end-node is communicating with a system that is not in a 198 LISP site, the procedures from [RFC6832] should be followed. The 199 PITR will be required to originate route advertisements for the 200 ephemeral-EID sub-block [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block] so it can 201 attract packets sourced by non-LISP sites destined to ephemeral-EIDs. 202 However, in the general case, the coarse block from 203 [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block] will be advertised which would cover 204 the sub-block. For IPv4, the 240.0.0.0/4 must be advertised into the 205 IPv4 routing system. 207 7. Multicast Considerations 209 A client end-node system can be a member of a multicast group fairly 210 easily since its address is not used for multicast communication as a 211 receiver. This is due to the design characteristics of IGMP 212 [RFC3376] [RFC2236] [RFC1112] and MLD [RFC2710] [RFC3810]. 214 When a client end-node system is a multicast source, there is 215 ephemeral (S,G) state that is created and maintained in the network 216 via multicast routing protocols such as PIM [RFC4602] and when PIM is 217 used with LISP [RFC6802]. In addition, when 218 [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] is used, ephemeral-EID 219 state is created in the mapping database. This doesn't present any 220 problems other than the amount of state that may exist in the network 221 if not timed out and removed promptly. 223 However, there exists a multicast source discovery problem when PIM- 224 SSM [RFC4607] is used. Members that join (S,G) channels via out of 225 band mechanisms. These mechanisms need to support ephemeral-EIDs. 226 Otherwise, PIM-ASM [RFC4602] or PIM-Bidir [RFC5015] will need to be 227 used. 229 8. Performance Improvements 231 An optimization to reduce the race condition between registering 232 ephemeral-EIDs and returning packets as well as reducing the 233 probability of ephemeral-EID address collision is to preload the 234 mapping database with a list of ephemeral-EIDs before using them. It 235 comes at a expense of rebinding all of registered ephemeral-EIDs when 236 there is an RLOC change. There is work in progress to consider 237 adding a level of indirection here so a single entry gets the RLOC 238 update and the list of ephemeral-EIDs point to the single entry. 240 9. Security Considerations 242 When LISP-crypto [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-crypto] is used the EID payload 243 is more secure through encryption providing EID obfuscation of the 244 ephemeral-EID as well as the global-EID it is communicating with. 245 But the obfuscation only occurs between xTRs. So the randomness of a 246 ephemeral-EID inside of LISP sites provide a new level of privacy. 248 10. IANA Considerations 250 This specification is requesting the sub-block 2001:5:ffff::/48 for 251 ephemeral-EID usage. 253 11. References 255 11.1. Normative References 257 [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5, 258 RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989, 259 . 261 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 262 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 263 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 264 . 266 [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 267 2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997, 268 . 270 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 271 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, 272 DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, 273 . 275 [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. 276 Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 277 3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002, 278 . 280 [RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener 281 Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, 282 DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004, 283 . 285 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 286 RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005, 287 . 289 [RFC4602] Pusateri, T., "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse 290 Mode (PIM-SM) IETF Proposed Standard Requirements 291 Analysis", RFC 4602, DOI 10.17487/RFC4602, August 2006, 292 . 294 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 295 IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006, 296 . 298 [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, 299 "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- 300 PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007, 301 . 303 [RFC6802] Baillargeon, S., Flinta, C., and A. Johnsson, "Ericsson 304 Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Value-Added 305 Octets", RFC 6802, DOI 10.17487/RFC6802, November 2012, 306 . 308 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 309 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 310 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 311 . 313 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 314 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 315 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, 316 DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, 317 . 319 11.2. Informative References 321 [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-crypto] 322 Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "LISP Data-Plane 323 Confidentiality", draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-03 (work in 324 progress). 326 [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block] 327 Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP 328 EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.txt (work in 329 progress). 331 [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] 332 Farinacci, D. and V. Moreno, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", 333 draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-00.txt (work in 334 progress). 336 [I-D.meyer-lisp-mn] 337 Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP 338 Mobile Node", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-16 (work in progress), 339 December 2016. 341 [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] 342 Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, 343 F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a 344 Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid- 345 mobility-02 (work in progress), April 2017. 347 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 349 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 350 acceptance of this draft. 352 Appendix B. Document Change Log 354 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 356 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 358 o Posted April 2017. 360 o Added section describing how ephemeral-EIDs can use a public key 361 hash as an alternative to a random number. 363 o Indciate when an EID/RLOC co-located, that the xTR can register 364 the EID when it is configured or changed versus waiting for a 365 packet to be sent as in the EID/RLOC separated case. 367 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 369 o Posted October 2016. 371 o Update document timer. 373 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 375 o Posted April 2016. 377 o Initial posting. 379 Authors' Addresses 380 Dino Farinacci 381 lispers.net 382 San Jose, CA 383 USA 385 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 387 Padma Pillay-Esnault 388 Huawei Technologies 389 San Clara, CA 390 USA 392 Email: padma@huawei.com 394 Wassim Haddad 395 Ericsson 396 San Clara, CA 397 USA 399 Email: wassim.haddad@ericsson.com