idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-10.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 (March 29, 2021) is 1121 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** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-07 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: September 30, 2021 Huawei Technologies 6 W. Haddad 7 Ericsson 8 March 29, 2021 10 LISP EID Anonymity 11 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-10 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 September 30, 2021. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2021 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-10 . . . . . . . 8 76 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-09 . . . . . . . 8 77 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-08 . . . . . . . 9 78 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-07 . . . . . . . 9 79 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-06 . . . . . . . 9 80 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-05 . . . . . . . 9 81 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-04 . . . . . . . 9 82 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-03 . . . . . . . 9 83 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 . . . . . . . 9 84 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 . . . . . . . 10 85 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . . . . 10 86 B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 . . . . 10 87 B.13. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 . . . . 10 88 B.14. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . 10 89 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 91 1. Introduction 93 The LISP architecture [RFC6830] specifies two namespaces, End-Point 94 IDs (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). An EID identifies a node in 95 the network and the RLOC indicates the EID's topological location. 97 Typically EIDs are globally unique so an end-node system can connect 98 to any other end-node system on the Internet. Privately used EIDs 99 are allowed when scoped within a VPN but must always be unique within 100 that scope. Therefore, address allocation is required by network 101 administration to avoid address collisions or duplicate address use. 102 In a multiple namespace architecture like LISP, typically the EID 103 will stay fixed while the RLOC can change. This occurs when the EID 104 is mobile or when the LISP site the EID resides in changes its 105 connection to the Internet. 107 LISP creates the opportunity where EIDs are fixed and won't change. 108 This draft will examine a technique to allow a end-node system to use 109 a temporary address. The lifetime of a temporary address can be the 110 same as a lifetime of an address in use today on the Internet or can 111 have traditionally shorter lifetimes, possibly on the order of a day 112 or even change as frequent as new connection attempts. 114 2. Definition of Terms 116 Ephemeral-EID - is an IP address that is created randomly for use 117 for a temporary period of time. An Ephemeral-EID has all the 118 properties of an EID as defined in [RFC6830]. Ephemeral-EIDs are 119 not stored in the Domain Name System (DNS) and should not be used 120 in long-term address referrals. 122 Client End-Node - is a network node that originates and consumes 123 packets. It is a system that originates packets or initiates the 124 establishment of transport-layer connections. It does not offer 125 services as a server system would. It accesses servers and 126 attempts to do it anonymously. 128 3. Overview 130 A client end-node can assign its own ephemeral EID and use it to talk 131 to any system on the Internet. The system is acting as a client 132 where it initiates communication and desires to be an inaccessible 133 resource from any other system. The ephemeral EID is used as a 134 destination address solely to return packets to resources the 135 ephemeral EID connects to. A client-node may simultaneously use a 136 traditional EID along with ephemeral EIDs in parallel and are not 137 mutually exclusive. A client may choose to use the ephemeral EIDs 138 with some peers only where it needs to preserve anonymity. 140 Here is the procedure a client end-node would use: 142 1. Client end-node desires to talk on the network. It creates and 143 assigns an ephemeral-EID on any interface. The client end-node 144 may also assign multiple ephemeral-EIDs on the same interface or 145 across different interfaces. 147 2. If the client end-node is a LISP xTR, it will register ephemeral- 148 EIDs mapped to underlay routable RLOCs. If the client end-node 149 is not a LISP xTR, it can send packets on the network where a 150 LISP router xTR will register the ephemeral-EIDs with its RLOC- 151 set. 153 3. The client end-node originates packets with a source address 154 equal to the ephemeral-EID and will receive packets addressed to 155 the ephemeral-EID. 157 4. When the client end-node decides to stop using an ephemeral-EID, 158 it will deregister it from the mapping system and create and 159 assign a new ephemeral-EID, or decide to configure a static 160 global address, or participate in DHCP to get assigned a leased 161 address. 163 Note that the ephemeral-EID can be mobile just like any other EID so 164 if it is initially registered to the mapping system with one or more 165 RLOCs, later the RLOC-set can change as the ephemeral-EID roams. 167 4. Design Details 169 This specification proposes the use of the experimental LISP EID- 170 block 2001:5::/32 [RFC7954] when IPv6 is used. See IANA 171 Considerations section for a specific sub-block allocation request. 172 When IPv4 is used, the Class E block 240.0.0.0/4 is being proposed. 174 The client end-node system will use the rest of the host bits to 175 allocate a random number to be used as the ephemeral-EID. The EID 176 can be created manually or via a programatic interface. When the EID 177 address is going to change frequently, it is suggested to use a 178 programatic interface. The probability of address collision is 179 unlikely for IPv6 EIDs but could occur for IPv4 EIDs. A client end- 180 node can create an ephemeral-EID and then look it up in the mapping 181 system to see if it exists. If the EID exists in the mapping system, 182 the client end-node can attempt creation of a new random number for 183 the ephemeral-EID. See Section 8 where ephemeral-EIDs can be 184 preallocated and registered to the mapping system before use. 186 When the client end-node system is co-located with the RLOC and acts 187 as an xTR, it should register the binding before sending packets. 188 This eliminates a race condition for returning packets not knowing 189 where to encapsulate packets to the ephemeral-EID's RLOCs. See 190 Section 8 for alternatives for fixing this race condition problem. 191 When the client end-node system is not acting as an xTR, it should 192 send some packets so its ephemeral-EID can be discovered by an xTR 193 which supports EID-mobility [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] so mapping 194 system registration can occur before the destination returns packets. 195 When the end-node system is acting as an xTR, the EID and RLOC-set is 196 co-located in the same node. So when the EID is created, the xTR can 197 register the mapping versus waiting for packet transmission. 199 5. Other Types of Ephemeral-EIDs 201 When IPv6 Ephemeral-EIDs are used, an alternative to a random number 202 can be used. For example, the low-order bits of the IPv6 address 203 could be a cryptographic hash of a public-key. Mechanisms from 204 [RFC3972] could be used for EIDs. Using this approach allows the 205 sender with a hashed EID to be authenticated. So packet signatures 206 can be verified by the corresponding public-key. When hashed EIDs 207 are used, the EID can change frequently as rekeying may be required 208 for enhanced security. LISP specific control message signature 209 mechanims can be found in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth]. 211 6. Interworking Considerations 213 If a client end-node is communicating with a system that is not in a 214 LISP site, the procedures from [RFC6832] should be followed. The 215 PITR will be required to originate route advertisements for the 216 ephemeral-EID sub-block [RFC7954] so it can attract packets sourced 217 by non-LISP sites destined to ephemeral-EIDs. However, in the 218 general case, the coarse block from [RFC7954] will be advertised 219 which would cover the sub-block. For IPv4, the 240.0.0.0/4 must be 220 advertised into the IPv4 routing system. 222 7. Multicast Considerations 224 A client end-node system can be a member of a multicast group fairly 225 easily since its address is not used for multicast communication as a 226 receiver. This is due to the design characteristics of IGMP 227 [RFC3376] [RFC2236] [RFC1112] and MLD [RFC2710] [RFC3810]. 229 When a client end-node system is a multicast source, there is 230 ephemeral (S,G) state that is created and maintained in the network 231 via multicast routing protocols such as PIM [RFC4602] and when PIM is 232 used with LISP [RFC6802]. In addition, when 233 [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] is used, ephemeral-EID state is 234 created in the mapping database. This doesn't present any problems 235 other than the amount of state that may exist in the network if not 236 timed out and removed promptly. 238 However, there exists a multicast source discovery problem when PIM- 239 SSM [RFC4607] is used. Members that join (S,G) channels via out of 240 band mechanisms. These mechanisms need to support ephemeral-EIDs. 241 Otherwise, PIM-ASM [RFC4602] or PIM-Bidir [RFC5015] will need to be 242 used. 244 8. Performance Improvements 246 An optimization to reduce the race condition between registering 247 ephemeral-EIDs and returning packets as well as reducing the 248 probability of ephemeral-EID address collision is to preload the 249 mapping database with a list of ephemeral-EIDs before using them. It 250 comes at the expense of rebinding all of registered ephemeral-EIDs 251 when there is an RLOC change. There is work in progress to consider 252 adding a level of indirection here so a single entry gets the RLOC 253 update and the list of ephemeral-EIDs point to the single entry. 255 9. Security Considerations 257 When LISP-crypto [RFC8061] is used the EID payload is more secure 258 through encryption providing EID obfuscation of the ephemeral-EID as 259 well as the global-EID it is communicating with. But the obfuscation 260 only occurs between xTRs. So the randomness of a ephemeral-EID 261 inside of LISP sites provide a new level of privacy. 263 10. IANA Considerations 265 This specification is requesting the sub-block 2001:5:ffff::/48 for 266 ephemeral-EID usage. 268 11. References 270 11.1. Normative References 272 [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5, 273 RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989, 274 . 276 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 277 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 278 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 279 . 281 [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 282 2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997, 283 . 285 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 286 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, 287 DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, 288 . 290 [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. 291 Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 292 3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002, 293 . 295 [RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener 296 Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, 297 DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004, 298 . 300 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 301 RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005, 302 . 304 [RFC4602] Pusateri, T., "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse 305 Mode (PIM-SM) IETF Proposed Standard Requirements 306 Analysis", RFC 4602, DOI 10.17487/RFC4602, August 2006, 307 . 309 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 310 IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006, 311 . 313 [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, 314 "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- 315 PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007, 316 . 318 [RFC6802] Baillargeon, S., Flinta, C., and A. Johnsson, "Ericsson 319 Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Value-Added 320 Octets", RFC 6802, DOI 10.17487/RFC6802, November 2012, 321 . 323 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 324 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 325 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 326 . 328 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 329 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 330 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, 331 DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, 332 . 334 [RFC7954] Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, 335 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier 336 (EID) Block", RFC 7954, DOI 10.17487/RFC7954, September 337 2016, . 339 [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol 340 (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, 341 DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, 342 . 344 11.2. Informative References 346 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth] 347 Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA 348 Authentication and Authorization", draft-farinacci-lisp- 349 ecdsa-auth-03 (work in progress), September 2018. 351 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] 352 Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, 353 F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a 354 Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-07 355 (work in progress), January 2021. 357 [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] 358 Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", 359 draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09 (work in 360 progress), March 2018. 362 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 364 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 365 acceptance of this draft. 367 Appendix B. Document Change Log 369 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 371 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-10 373 o Posted end of March 2021. 375 o Update document timer and references. 377 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-09 379 o Posted end of October 2020. 381 o Update document timer and references. 383 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-08 385 o Posted end of April 2020. 387 o Update document timer and references. 389 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-07 391 o Posted end of October 2019. 393 o Update document timer and references. 395 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-06 397 o Posted end of March 2019. 399 o Padma had more basic edits and some clarification text. 401 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-05 403 o Posted March IETF week 2019. 405 o Do not state that ephemeral EIDs make the privacy problem worse. 407 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-04 409 o Posted October 2018 before Bangkok IETF deadline. 411 o Made Padma requested changes to refer to ephemeral-EIDs allowed to 412 have many on one interface and can be registered with more than 1 413 RLOC but one RLOC-set. 415 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-03 417 o Posted October 2018. 419 o Update document timer and references. 421 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 423 o Posted April 2018. 425 o Update document timer and references. 427 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 429 o Posted October 2017. 431 o Add to section 5 that PKI can be used to authenticate EIDs. 433 o Update references. 435 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 437 o Posted August 2017. 439 o Made draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 a LISP working group 440 document. 442 B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 444 o Posted April 2017. 446 o Added section describing how ephemeral-EIDs can use a public key 447 hash as an alternative to a random number. 449 o Indciate when an EID/RLOC co-located, that the xTR can register 450 the EID when it is configured or changed versus waiting for a 451 packet to be sent as in the EID/RLOC separated case. 453 B.13. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 455 o Posted October 2016. 457 o Update document timer. 459 B.14. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 461 o Posted April 2016. 463 o Initial posting. 465 Authors' Addresses 467 Dino Farinacci 468 lispers.net 469 San Jose, CA 470 USA 472 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 473 Padma Pillay-Esnault 474 Huawei Technologies 475 San Clara, CA 476 USA 478 Email: padma@huawei.com 480 Wassim Haddad 481 Ericsson 482 San Clara, CA 483 USA 485 Email: wassim.haddad@ericsson.com