idnits 2.17.1 draft-xyz-pidloc-ps-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 (May 14, 2019) is 1809 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels' is defined on line 298, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-lisp-sec' is defined on line 303, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-09 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. von Hugo 3 Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom 4 Intended status: Standards Track B. Sarikaya 5 Expires: November 15, 2019 Denpel Informatique 6 L. Iannone 7 Telecom ParisTech 8 A. Petrescu 9 CEA, LIST 10 K. Sun 11 Soongsil University 12 U. Fattore 13 NEC 14 May 14, 2019 16 Problem Statement for Secure End to End Privacy in IdLoc Systems 17 draft-xyz-pidloc-ps-00.txt 19 Abstract 21 Efficient and service aware flexible end-to-end routing in future 22 communication networks is achieved by routing protocol approaches 23 making use of Identifier Locator separation systems. Since these 24 systems require a correlation between identifiers and location which 25 might allow tracking and misusage of individuals' identities and 26 locations such operation demands for highly secure measures to 27 preserve privacy of users and devices. This document tries to 28 identify and describe typical use cases and derive thereof 29 requirements to be fulfilled by privacy preserving Identifier-Locator 30 split (PidLoc) approaches. 32 Status of This Memo 34 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 35 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 37 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 38 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 39 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 40 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 42 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 43 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 44 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 45 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 47 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 15, 2019. 49 Copyright Notice 51 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 52 document authors. All rights reserved. 54 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 55 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 56 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 57 publication of this document. Please review these documents 58 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 59 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 60 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 61 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 62 described in the Simplified BSD License. 64 Table of Contents 66 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 67 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 3. Identifier Locator Separation Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 4.1. Industrial IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 4.2. 5G Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4.3. Cloud Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4.4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 5. PIdLoc Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 83 1. Introduction 85 Forthcoming future communication systems which are currently under 86 specification by standardization organizations try to achieve higher 87 resource efficiency and flexibility as compared to currently deployed 88 and operated networks. Independent of specific access technologies 89 multiple applications shall be served with different levels of 90 policy- driven mobility support and quality of service in terms of 91 bandwidth, latency, error probability etc. Current practice of IP 92 address usage includes semantics as session identification as well as 93 entity location and name resolution. Many networking and information 94 processing related topics as cloud computing, software defined 95 networking, network function virtualization, logical network slicing, 96 and convergence of multiple heterogeneous access and transport 97 technologies call for new approaches towards service specific and 98 optimized packet routing. 100 Promising proposals are Identifier Locator (Id-Loc) separation 101 systems like Identifier Locator Addressing (ILA), Identifier-Locator 102 Network Protocol (ILNP), Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), and 103 others. 105 Architectures and protocols for these approaches are already 106 documented in detail and are under continuous evolution in different 107 WGs. This document on the other hand attempts to identify potential 108 issues with respect to real-world deployment scenarios which may 109 demand for light- weight implementations of Id-Loc systems. 110 Especially the issues related to threads due to privacy violation of 111 devices and their users as well as location detection and movement 112 tracking may demand for specific countermeasures. 114 To provide a problem statement this draft documents common aspects 115 and differences of several Id-Loc approaches from a high-level 116 perspective and describes a set of use cases resulting in identified 117 requirements towards privacy and security. 119 2. Conventions and Terminology 121 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 122 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 123 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 125 Identifier: An identifier is information to unambiguously identify an 126 entity or an entity group within a given scope. An identifier is the 127 equivalent of an End point identifier (EID) in The Locator/ID 128 Separation Protocol (LISP). It may be visible in communications. 130 Locator: A locator is a routable network address. It may be 131 associated with an identifier and used for communication on the 132 network layer according to identifier locator split principle. A 133 locator is the equivalent of a Routing Locator (RLOC) in LISP or an 134 IP address in other cases. 136 3. Identifier Locator Separation Protocols 138 Identifier represents a communication end-point of an entity and may 139 not be routable. Locator also represents a communication end point, 140 i.e. its routable network address and thus can change if the entity 141 moves. A database called a mapping system needs to be used for 142 identifier to locator mapping. Identifiers are mapped to locators 143 for forwarding purposes. Mapping system has to handle mobility by 144 modifying identifier to locator mappings in the database. 146 To start the communication, a device needs to know the identifier of 147 the destination and then relies on a process to lookup on a network 148 identifier and return the locator(s). Note that both identifier and 149 locator can be carried in clear in packet headers. 151 Usage of identifiers readily available for public access raises 152 privacy issues. For public entities, it may be desirable to have 153 their fully qualified domain names or host names available for public 154 lookups by the clients however such is not the case in general for 155 the identifiers, e.g. for individuals roaming in a mobile network. 157 ILNP 159 Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [RFC6740] is a host- based 160 approach enabling mobility using mechanisms that are only deployed in 161 end-systems and do not require any router changes. ... 163 ILA 165 Identifier-Locator Addressing (ILA) [I-D.herbert-intarea-ila] uses 166 address transformation proposing to split an IPv6 address in 64-bit 167 identifier (lower address bits) and locator (higher address bits) 168 portions. The locator part is determined dynamically from a mapping 169 table that maintains associations between the location-independent 170 identifiers and topologically significant locators. ... 172 LISP 174 Locator/Id Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] is a network based 175 approach using mapping and encapsulation of packets proposing a LISP 176 architecture which provides a level of indirection for routing and 177 addressing performed at specific ingress/egress routers at the LISP 178 domain boundaries. LISP control plane protocol [RFC6833] can also be 179 applied to various other user plane protocols. Both LISP user plane 180 as control plane are under revision as [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and 181 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], respectively. ... 183 4. Use Cases 185 The collection of use cases shall serve as starting point to derive 186 requirements to future solutions providing privacy and security in 187 generic Identifier Locator Split Approaches. 189 4.1. Industrial IoT 191 Sensors and other connected things in the industry are usually no 192 personal items (e.g. wearables) potentially revealing an indiduals 193 sensitive information but business assets which should be detected 194 only by authorised intra-company entities. Since the huge amount of 195 these things (massive IoT) as well as typical energy and bandwidth 196 constraints of battery-powered devices may pose a challenge to 197 traditional routing and security measures privacy enabled Id-Loc 198 split approaches are proposed as a viable approach here, 199 [I-D.nordmark-id-loc-privacy] ... 201 4.2. 5G Use Case 203 Upcoming new truely universal communication via so-called 5G systems 204 will demand for much more that (just) higher bandwidth and lower 205 latency. Integration of heterogeneous multiple access technologies 206 (both wireless and wireleine) controlled by a common converged core 207 network and the evolution to service-based flexile functionalities 208 instead of hard-coded network functions calls for new protocols both 209 on control and user (data) plane. While Id-Loc approach would serve 210 well here the challenge to provide a unique level of security and 211 privacy even for a lightweight routing and forwarding mechanism - 212 allowing for ease of deployment and migration from existing 213 operational network architecture - remains to be solved. 215 4.3. Cloud Use Case 217 The cloud, i.e. a set of distributed data centers for processing and 218 storage connected via highspeed transmission paths, is seen as 219 logical location for content and also for virtualized network 220 function instances and shall provide measures for easy re-location 221 and migration of these instances deployed as e.g. containers or 222 virtual machines. Id-Loc split routing protocols are proposed for 223 usage here while the topology of the cloud components and logical 224 correlations shall be invisible from outside. ... 226 4.4. Vehicular Networks 228 In vehicular networks use cases (e.g. for a future C-ITS, i.e. 229 Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems) there are some problems 230 related to privacy. Cars are mandated to beacon CAM messages 231 (cooperative awareness message - also denoted as basic service 232 message, BSM) very frequently (more than 1 per second). These 233 messages contain identifiers such as MAC addresses. They are unique 234 and visible in the public oui.txt file. They can be tracked. But 235 these are MAC addresses, not IP addresses. 237 If, in the future, cars beacon Router Advertisements as well, then 238 there is a risk in the src address of these RAs - the LL. They are 239 usually formed out of the MAC address, even though recent RFC7217 240 [RFC7217] give suggestion of using a random ID in the IID (Interface 241 Identifiers) (rather than the MAC address); the RFC stays silent 242 about the prefix length; since the RFC7217 method covers also the LL 243 addresses, and requires them to be RFC4291-like (64bit length), that 244 random ID is still of fixed length (64). Longer than 64 IIDs may 245 benefit privacy, since crypto attacks on them would be harder. 247 A variable length IID in link-local addresses may help create a 248 flexible identifier-locator split thus increasing privacy. 250 In addition C-ITS shall also allow to improve vehicular network based 251 services as e.g. predict traffic congestion along the route and 252 propose a re-direction towards alternative routes, or predict network 253 coverage along the foreseen path to adapt a critical service. This 254 on the other hand demands for knowledge of the actual route, i.e. 255 tracking of the vehicle. As was shown in [NYC_cab] even anonymizing 256 sometimes does not prevent from privacy breaches. ... 258 5. PIdLoc Requirements 260 TBD. 262 6. IANA Considerations 264 TBD. 266 7. Security Considerations 268 8. Acknowledgements 270 9. References 272 9.1. Normative References 274 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 275 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 276 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 277 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 (work in progress), 278 November 2018. 280 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 281 Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, 282 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", 283 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 (work in progress), February 284 2019. 286 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 287 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 288 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 289 . 291 9.2. Informative References 293 [I-D.herbert-intarea-ila] 294 Herbert, T. and P. Lapukhov, "Identifier-locator 295 addressing for IPv6", draft-herbert-intarea-ila-01 (work 296 in progress), March 2018. 298 [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] 299 Touch, J. and M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet 300 Architecture", draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-09 (work in 301 progress), July 2018. 303 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 304 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 305 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17 306 (work in progress), November 2018. 308 [I-D.nordmark-id-loc-privacy] 309 Nordmark, E., "Privacy issues in ID/locator separation 310 systems", draft-nordmark-id-loc-privacy-00 (work in 311 progress), July 2018. 313 [NYC_cab] Douriez, et al., M., "Anonymizing NYC Taxi Data: Does It 314 Matter?", Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Data Science and 315 Advanced Analytics (DSAA'16) , pp. 140-148, 2016. 317 [RFC6740] Atkinson, RJ. and SN. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network 318 Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740, 319 DOI 10.17487/RFC6740, November 2012, 320 . 322 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 323 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 324 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 325 . 327 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 328 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 329 DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013, 330 . 332 [RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque 333 Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address 334 Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, 335 DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014, 336 . 338 Authors' Addresses 340 Dirk von Hugo 341 Deutsche Telekom 342 Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7 343 D-64295 Darmstadt 344 Germany 346 Email: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de 348 Behcet Sarikaya 349 Denpel Informatique 351 Email: sarikaya@ieee.org 353 Luigi Iannone 354 Telecom ParisTech 356 Email: ggx@gigix.net 358 Alex Petrescu 359 CEA, LIST 361 Email: alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com 363 Kyoungjae Sun 364 Soongsil University 366 Email: gomjae@dcn.ssu.ac.kr 368 Umberto Fattore 369 NEC 371 Email: Umberto.Fattore@neclab.eu