idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-08.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 9, 2020) is 1476 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-05 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 11, 2020 Huawei Technologies 6 W. Haddad 7 Ericsson 8 April 9, 2020 10 LISP EID Anonymity 11 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-08 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 https://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 11, 2020. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6. Interworking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 7. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 8. Performance Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-08 . . . . . . . 8 76 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-07 . . . . . . . 8 77 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-06 . . . . . . . 9 78 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-05 . . . . . . . 9 79 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-04 . . . . . . . 9 80 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-03 . . . . . . . 9 81 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 . . . . . . . 9 82 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 . . . . . . . 9 83 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . . . . 9 84 B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 . . . . 10 85 B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 . . . . 10 86 B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . 10 87 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 89 1. Introduction 91 The LISP architecture [RFC6830] specifies two namespaces, End-Point 92 IDs (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). An EID identifies a node in 93 the network and the RLOC indicates the EID's topological location. 94 Typically EIDs are globally unique so an end-node system can connect 95 to any other end-node system on the Internet. Privately used EIDs 96 are allowed when scoped within a VPN but must always be unique within 97 that scope. Therefore, address allocation is required by network 98 administration to avoid address collisions or duplicate address use. 99 In a multiple namespace architecture like LISP, typically the EID 100 will stay fixed while the RLOC can change. This occurs when the EID 101 is mobile or when the LISP site the EID resides in changes its 102 connection to the Internet. 104 LISP creates the opportunity where EIDs are fixed and won't change. 105 This draft will examine a technique to allow a end-node system to use 106 a temporary address. The lifetime of a temporary address can be the 107 same as a lifetime of an address in use today on the Internet or can 108 have traditionally shorter lifetimes, possibly on the order of a day 109 or even change as frequent as new connection attempts. 111 2. Definition of Terms 113 Ephemeral-EID - is an IP address that is created randomly for use 114 for a temporary period of time. An Ephemeral-EID has all the 115 properties of an EID as defined in [RFC6830]. Ephemeral-EIDs are 116 not stored in the Domain Name System (DNS) and should not be used 117 in long-term address referrals. 119 Client End-Node - is a network node that originates and consumes 120 packets. It is a system that originates packets or initiates the 121 establishment of transport-layer connections. It does not offer 122 services as a server system would. It accesses servers and 123 attempts to do it anonymously. 125 3. Overview 127 A client end-node can assign its own ephemeral EID and use it to talk 128 to any system on the Internet. The system is acting as a client 129 where it initiates communication and desires to be an inaccessible 130 resource from any other system. The ephemeral EID is used as a 131 destination address solely to return packets to resources the 132 ephemeral EID connects to. A client-node may simultaneously use a 133 traditional EID along with ephemeral EIDs in parallel and are not 134 mutually exclusive. A client may choose to use the ephemeral EIDs 135 with some peers only where it needs to preserve anonymity. 137 Here is the procedure a client end-node would use: 139 1. Client end-node desires to talk on the network. It creates and 140 assigns an ephemeral-EID on any interface. The client end-node 141 may also assign multiple ephemeral-EIDs on the same interface or 142 across different interfaces. 144 2. If the client end-node is a LISP xTR, it will register ephemeral- 145 EIDs mapped to underlay routable RLOCs. If the client end-node 146 is not a LISP xTR, it can send packets on the network where a 147 LISP router xTR will register the ephemeral-EIDs with its RLOC- 148 set. 150 3. The client end-node originates packets with a source address 151 equal to the ephemeral-EID and will receive packets addressed to 152 the ephemeral-EID. 154 4. When the client end-node decides to stop using an ephemeral-EID, 155 it will deregister it from the mapping system and create and 156 assign a new ephemeral-EID, or decide to configure a static 157 global address, or participate in DHCP to get assigned a leased 158 address. 160 Note that the ephemeral-EID can be mobile just like any other EID so 161 if it is initially registered to the mapping system with one or more 162 RLOCs, later the RLOC-set can change as the ephemeral-EID roams. 164 4. Design Details 166 This specification proposes the use of the experimental LISP EID- 167 block 2001:5::/32 [RFC7954] when IPv6 is used. See IANA 168 Considerations section for a specific sub-block allocation request. 169 When IPv4 is used, the Class E block 240.0.0.0/4 is being proposed. 171 The client end-node system will use the rest of the host bits to 172 allocate a random number to be used as the ephemeral-EID. The EID 173 can be created manually or via a programatic interface. When the EID 174 address is going to change frequently, it is suggested to use a 175 programatic interface. The probability of address collision is 176 unlikely for IPv6 EIDs but could occur for IPv4 EIDs. A client end- 177 node can create an ephemeral-EID and then look it up in the mapping 178 system to see if it exists. If the EID exists in the mapping system, 179 the client end-node can attempt creation of a new random number for 180 the ephemeral-EID. See Section 8 where ephemeral-EIDs can be 181 preallocated and registered to the mapping system before use. 183 When the client end-node system is co-located with the RLOC and acts 184 as an xTR, it should register the binding before sending packets. 185 This eliminates a race condition for returning packets not knowing 186 where to encapsulate packets to the ephemeral-EID's RLOCs. See 187 Section 8 for alternatives for fixing this race condition problem. 188 When the client end-node system is not acting as an xTR, it should 189 send some packets so its ephemeral-EID can be discovered by an xTR 190 which supports EID-mobility [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] so mapping 191 system registration can occur before the destination returns packets. 193 When the end-node system is acting as an xTR, the EID and RLOC-set is 194 co-located in the same node. So when the EID is created, the xTR can 195 register the mapping versus waiting for packet transmission. 197 5. Other Types of Ephemeral-EIDs 199 When IPv6 Ephemeral-EIDs are used, an alternative to a random number 200 can be used. For example, the low-order bits of the IPv6 address 201 could be a cryptographic hash of a public-key. Mechanisms from 202 [RFC3972] could be used for EIDs. Using this approach allows the 203 sender with a hashed EID to be authenticated. So packet signatures 204 can be verified by the corresponding public-key. When hashed EIDs 205 are used, the EID can change frequently as rekeying may be required 206 for enhanced security. LISP specific control message signature 207 mechanims can be found in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth]. 209 6. Interworking Considerations 211 If a client end-node is communicating with a system that is not in a 212 LISP site, the procedures from [RFC6832] should be followed. The 213 PITR will be required to originate route advertisements for the 214 ephemeral-EID sub-block [RFC7954] so it can attract packets sourced 215 by non-LISP sites destined to ephemeral-EIDs. However, in the 216 general case, the coarse block from [RFC7954] will be advertised 217 which would cover the sub-block. For IPv4, the 240.0.0.0/4 must be 218 advertised into the IPv4 routing system. 220 7. Multicast Considerations 222 A client end-node system can be a member of a multicast group fairly 223 easily since its address is not used for multicast communication as a 224 receiver. This is due to the design characteristics of IGMP 225 [RFC3376] [RFC2236] [RFC1112] and MLD [RFC2710] [RFC3810]. 227 When a client end-node system is a multicast source, there is 228 ephemeral (S,G) state that is created and maintained in the network 229 via multicast routing protocols such as PIM [RFC4602] and when PIM is 230 used with LISP [RFC6802]. In addition, when 231 [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] is used, ephemeral-EID state is 232 created in the mapping database. This doesn't present any problems 233 other than the amount of state that may exist in the network if not 234 timed out and removed promptly. 236 However, there exists a multicast source discovery problem when PIM- 237 SSM [RFC4607] is used. Members that join (S,G) channels via out of 238 band mechanisms. These mechanisms need to support ephemeral-EIDs. 239 Otherwise, PIM-ASM [RFC4602] or PIM-Bidir [RFC5015] will need to be 240 used. 242 8. Performance Improvements 244 An optimization to reduce the race condition between registering 245 ephemeral-EIDs and returning packets as well as reducing the 246 probability of ephemeral-EID address collision is to preload the 247 mapping database with a list of ephemeral-EIDs before using them. It 248 comes at the expense of rebinding all of registered ephemeral-EIDs 249 when there is an RLOC change. There is work in progress to consider 250 adding a level of indirection here so a single entry gets the RLOC 251 update and the list of ephemeral-EIDs point to the single entry. 253 9. Security Considerations 255 When LISP-crypto [RFC8061] is used the EID payload is more secure 256 through encryption providing EID obfuscation of the ephemeral-EID as 257 well as the global-EID it is communicating with. But the obfuscation 258 only occurs between xTRs. So the randomness of a ephemeral-EID 259 inside of LISP sites provide a new level of privacy. 261 10. IANA Considerations 263 This specification is requesting the sub-block 2001:5:ffff::/48 for 264 ephemeral-EID usage. 266 11. References 268 11.1. Normative References 270 [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5, 271 RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989, 272 . 274 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 275 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 276 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 277 . 279 [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 280 2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997, 281 . 283 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 284 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, 285 DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, 286 . 288 [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. 289 Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 290 3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002, 291 . 293 [RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener 294 Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, 295 DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004, 296 . 298 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 299 RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005, 300 . 302 [RFC4602] Pusateri, T., "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse 303 Mode (PIM-SM) IETF Proposed Standard Requirements 304 Analysis", RFC 4602, DOI 10.17487/RFC4602, August 2006, 305 . 307 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 308 IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006, 309 . 311 [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, 312 "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- 313 PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007, 314 . 316 [RFC6802] Baillargeon, S., Flinta, C., and A. Johnsson, "Ericsson 317 Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Value-Added 318 Octets", RFC 6802, DOI 10.17487/RFC6802, November 2012, 319 . 321 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 322 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 323 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 324 . 326 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 327 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 328 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, 329 DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, 330 . 332 [RFC7954] Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, 333 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier 334 (EID) Block", RFC 7954, DOI 10.17487/RFC7954, September 335 2016, . 337 [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol 338 (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, 339 DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, 340 . 342 11.2. Informative References 344 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth] 345 Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA 346 Authentication and Authorization", draft-farinacci-lisp- 347 ecdsa-auth-03 (work in progress), September 2018. 349 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] 350 Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, 351 F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a 352 Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-05 353 (work in progress), November 2019. 355 [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] 356 Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", 357 draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09 (work in 358 progress), March 2018. 360 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 362 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 363 acceptance of this draft. 365 Appendix B. Document Change Log 367 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 369 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-08 371 o Posted end of April 2020. 373 o Update document timer and references. 375 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-07 377 o Posted end of October 2019. 379 o Update document timer and references. 381 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-06 383 o Posted end of March 2019. 385 o Padma had more basic edits and some clarification text. 387 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-05 389 o Posted March IETF week 2019. 391 o Do not state that ephemeral EIDs make the privacy problem worse. 393 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-04 395 o Posted October 2018 before Bangkok IETF deadline. 397 o Made Padma requested changes to refer to ephemeral-EIDs allowed to 398 have many on one interface and can be registered with more than 1 399 RLOC but one RLOC-set. 401 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-03 403 o Posted October 2018. 405 o Update document timer and references. 407 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 409 o Posted April 2018. 411 o Update document timer and references. 413 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 415 o Posted October 2017. 417 o Add to section 5 that PKI can be used to authenticate EIDs. 419 o Update references. 421 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 423 o Posted August 2017. 425 o Made draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 a LISP working group 426 document. 428 B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 430 o Posted April 2017. 432 o Added section describing how ephemeral-EIDs can use a public key 433 hash as an alternative to a random number. 435 o Indciate when an EID/RLOC co-located, that the xTR can register 436 the EID when it is configured or changed versus waiting for a 437 packet to be sent as in the EID/RLOC separated case. 439 B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 441 o Posted October 2016. 443 o Update document timer. 445 B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 447 o Posted April 2016. 449 o Initial posting. 451 Authors' Addresses 453 Dino Farinacci 454 lispers.net 455 San Jose, CA 456 USA 458 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 460 Padma Pillay-Esnault 461 Huawei Technologies 462 San Clara, CA 463 USA 465 Email: padma@huawei.com 467 Wassim Haddad 468 Ericsson 469 San Clara, CA 470 USA 472 Email: wassim.haddad@ericsson.com