DOTS R. Dobbins
Internet-Draft Arbor Networks
Intended status: Informational D. Migault
Expires: January 4, 2018 Ericsson
S. Fouant
R. Moskowitz
HTT Consulting
N. Teague
Verisign
L. Xia
Huawei
K. Nishizuka
NTT Communications
July 03, 2017
Use cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling
draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-06
Abstract
The DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) effort is intended to provide a
protocol that facilitates interoperability between multivendor
solutions/services. This document presents use cases to evaluate the
interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS
messaging exchanges. The purpose of describing use cases is to
identify the interacting DOTS components, how they collaborate and
what are the types of information to be exchanged.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use Cases Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Inter-domain Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. End-customer with a single upstream transit provider
offering DDoS mitigation services . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. End-customer with multiple upstream transit providers
offering DDoS mitigation services . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. End-customer with multiple upstream transit
providers, but only a single upstream transit
provider offering DDoS mitigation services . . . . . 6
3.1.4. End-customer with an overlay DDoS mitigation managed
security service provider (MSSP) . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.5. End-customer operating an application or service with
an integrated DOTS client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.6. End-customer operating a CPE network infrastructure
device with an integrated DOTS client . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.7. End-customer with an out-of-band smartphone
application featuring DOTS client capabilities . . . 9
3.1.8. MSSP as an end-customer requesting overflow DDoS
mitigation assistance from other MSSPs . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Intra-domain Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. Suppression of outbound DDoS traffic originating from
a consumer broadband access network . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2. DDoS Orchestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Currently, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack mitigation
solutions/services are largely based upon siloed, proprietary
communications paradigms which result in vendor/service lock-in. As
a side-effect, this makes the configuration, provisioning, operation,
and activation of these solutions a highly manual and often time-
consuming process. Additionally, coordination of multiple DDoS
mitigation solutions/services simultaneously engaged in defending the
same organization against DDoS attacks is fraught with both technical
and process-related hurdles. This greatly increase operational
complexity and often results in suboptimal DDoS attack mitigation
efficacy.
The DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) effort is intended to provide a
protocol that facilitates interoperability between multivendor DDoS
mitigation solutions/services. As DDoS solutions/services are
broadly heterogeneous among different vendors, the primary goal for
DOTS is to provide a high level interaction with these DDoS
solutions/services such as initiating or terminating DDoS mitigation
assistance.
It should be noted that DOTS is not in and of itself intended to
perform orchestration functions duplicative of the functionality
being developed by the [I2NSF] WG; rather, DOTS is intended to allow
devices, services, and applications to request DDoS attack mitigation
assistance and receive mitigation status updates from systems of this
nature.
The use cases presented in the document are intended to provide
examples of communications interactions DOTS-enabled nodes in both
inter- and intra-organizational DDoS mitigation scenarios. These use
cases are expected to provide inputs for the design of the DOTS
protocol(s).
2. Terminology and Acronyms
2.1. Requirements Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
2.2. Acronyms
This document makes use of the same terminology and definitions as
[I-D.ietf-dots-requirements], except where noted.
2.3. Terms
Inter-organizational: a DOTS communications relationship between
distinct organizations with separate spans of administrative control.
Typical inter-organizational DOTS communication relationships would
be between a DDoS mitigation service provider and an end-customer
organizational which requires DDoS mitigation assistance; between
multiple DDoS mitigation service providers coordinating mutual
defense of a mutual end-customer; or between DDoS mitigation service
providers which are requesting additional DDoS mitigation assistance
in for attacks which exceed their inherent DDoS mitigation capacities
and/or capabilities.
Intra-organizational: a DOTS communications relationship between
various elements within a single span of administrative control. A
typical intra-organizational DOTS communications relationship would
be between DOTS clients, DOTS gateways, and DOTS servers within the
same organization.
3. Use Cases Scenarios
This section provides a high-level description of scenarios addressed
by DOTS. In both sections, the scenarios are provided in order to
illustrate the use of DOTS in typical DDoS attack scenarios. They
are not definitive, and other use cases are expected to emerge with
widespread DOTS deployment.
All scenarios present a coordination between the targeted
organization, the DDoS attack telemetry and the mitigator. The
coordination and communication between these entity depends, for
example on the characteristic or functionality of the equipment, the
reliability of the information provided by DDoS attack telemetry, and
the business relationship between the DDoS target domain and the
mitigator.
More explicitly, in some cases, the DDoS attack telemetry may simply
activate a DDoS mitigation, whereas in other cases, it may
collaborate by providing some information about an attack. In some
cases, the DDoS mitigation may be orchestrated, which includes
selecting a specific appliance as well as starting/ending a
mitigation.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
3.1. Inter-domain Use Cases
3.1.1. End-customer with a single upstream transit provider offering
DDoS mitigation services
In this scenario, an enterprise network with self-hosted Internet-
facing properties such as Web servers, authoritative DNS servers, and
VoIP PBXes has an intelligent DDoS mitigation system (IDMS) deployed
to protect those servers and applications from DDoS attacks. In
addition to their on-premise DDoS defense capability, they have
contracted with their Internet transit provider for DDoS mitigation
services which threaten to overwhelm their transit link bandwidth.
The IDMS is configured such that if the incoming Internet traffic
volume exceeds 50% of the provisioned upstream Internet transit link
capacity, the IDMS will request DDoS mitigation assistance from the
upstream transit provider.
The requests to trigger, manage, and finalize a DDoS mitigation
between the enterprise IDMS and the transit provider is performed
using DOTS. The enterprise IDMS implements a DOTS client while the
transit provider implements a DOTS server which is integrated with
their DDoS mitigation orchestration system.
When the IDMS detects an inbound DDoS attack targeting the enterprise
servers and applications, it immediately begins mitigating the
attack.
During the course of the attack, the inbound traffic volume exceeds
the 50% threshold; the IDMS DOTS client signals the DOTS server on
the upstream transit provider network to initiate DDoS mitigation.
The DOTS server signals the DOTS client that it can service this
request, and mitigation is initiated on the transit provider network.
Over the course of the attack, the DOTS server on the transit
provider network periodically signals the DOTS client on the
enterprise IDMS in order to provide mitigation status information,
statistics related to DDoS attack traffic mitigation, and related
information. Once the DDoS attack has ended, the DOTS server signals
the enterprise IDMS DOTS client that the attack has subsided.
The enterprise IDMS then requests that DDoS mitigation services on
the upstream transit provider network be terminated. The DOTS server
on the transit provider network receives this request, communicates
with the transit provider orchestration system controlling its DDoS
mitigation system to terminate attack mitigation, and once the
mitigation has ended, confirms the end of upstream DDoS mitigation
service to the enterprise IDMS DOTS client.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
Note that communications between the enterprise DOTS client and the
upstream transit provider DOTS server may take place in-band within
the main Internet transit link between the enterprise and the transit
provider; out-of-band via a separate, dedicated wireline network link
utilized solely for DOTS signaling; or out-of-band via some other
form of network connectivity such as a third-party wireless 4G
network link.
3.1.2. End-customer with multiple upstream transit providers offering
DDoS mitigation services
This scenario shares many characteristics with the above, but with
the key difference that the enterprise in question is multi-homed,
i.e., has two or more upstream transit providers, and that they all
provide DDoS mitigation services.
In most cases, the communications model for a multi-homed model would
be the same as in the single-homed model, merely duplicated in
parallel. However, if two or more of the upstream transit providers
have entered into a mutual DDoS mitigation agreement and have
established DOTS peering between the participants, DDoS mitigation
status messages may exchanged between the DOTS servers of the
participants in order to provide a more complete picture of the DDoS
attack scope, and allow for either automated or operator-assisted
programmatic cooperative DDoS mitigation activities on the part of
the transit providers.
3.1.3. End-customer with multiple upstream transit providers, but only
a single upstream transit provider offering DDoS mitigation
services
This scenario is similar to the multi-homed scenario referenced
above; however, only one of the upstream transit providers in
question offers DDoS mitigation services. In this situation, the
enterprise would cease advertising the relevant network prefixes via
the transit providers which do not provide DDoS mitigation services -
or, in the case where the enterprise does not control its own
routing, request that the upstream transit providers which do not
offer DDoS mitigation services stop advertising the relevant network
prefixes on their behalf.
Once it has been determined that the DDoS attack has ceased, the
enterprise once again announces the relevant routes to the upstream
transit providers which do not offer DDoS mitigation services, or
requests that they resume announcing the relevant routes on behalf of
the enterprise.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
Note that falling back to a single transit provider has the effect of
reducing available inbound transit bandwidth during a DDoS attack.
Without proper planning and sufficient provisioning of both the link
capacity and DDoS mitigation capacity of the sole transit provider
offering DDoS mitigation services, this reduction of available
bandwidth could lead to network link congestion caused by legitimate
inbound network traffic. Therefore, careful planning and
provisioning of both upstream transit bandwidth as well as DDoS
mitigation capacity is required in scenarios of this nature.
The withdrawal and announcement of routing prefixes described in this
use-case falls outside the scope of DOTS, although they could
conceivably be triggered as a result of provider-specific
orchestration triggered by the receipt of specific DOTS messages from
the enterprise in question.
3.1.4. End-customer with an overlay DDoS mitigation managed security
service provider (MSSP)
This use case details an enterprise that has a local DDoS detection
and classification capability and may or may not have an on-premise
mitigation capability. The enterprise is contracted with an overlay
DDoS mitigation MSSP, topologically distant from the enterprise
network (i.e., not a direct upstream transit provider), which can
redirect (divert) traffic away from the enterprise, provide DDoS
mitigation services services, and then forward (re-inject) legitimate
traffic to the enterprise on an on-demand basis. In this scenario,
diversion of Internet traffic destined for the enterprise network
into the overlay DDoS mitigation MSSP network is typically
accomplished via eBGP announcements of the relevant enterprise
network CIDR blocks, or via authoritative DNS subdomain-based
mechanisms (other mechanisms are not precluded, these are merely the
most common ones in use today).
The enterprise determines thresholds at which a request for
mitigation is triggered indicating to the MSSP that inbound network
traffic should be diverted into the MSSP network and that DDoS
mitigation should be initiated. The enterprise may also elect to
manually request diversion and mitigation via the MSSP network as
desired.
The communications required to initiate, manage, and terminate active
DDoS mitigation by the MSSP is performed using DOTS. The enterprise
DDoS detection/classification system implements a DOTS client, while
the MSSP implements a DOTS server integrated with its DDoS mitigation
orchestration system. One or more out-of-band methods for initiating
a mitigation request, such as a Web portal, a smartphone app, or
voice support hotline, may also be made available by the MSSP.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
When an attack is detected, an automated or manual DOTS mitigation
request is be generated by the enterprise and sent to the MSSP. The
enterprise DOTS mitigation request is processed by the MSSP DOTS
server, which validates the origin of the request and passes it to
the MSSP DDoS mitigation orchestration system, which then initiates
active DDoS mitigation. This action will usually involve the
diversion of all network traffic destined for the targeted enterprise
into the MSSP DDoS mitigation network, where it will be subjected to
further scrutiny, with DDoS attack traffic filtered by the MSSP.
Successful mitigation of the DDoS attack will not only result
preserving the availability of services and applications resident on
the enterprise network, but will also prevent DDoS attack traffic
from ingressing the networks of the enterprise upstream transit
providers/peers.
The MSSP should signal via DOTS to the enterprise that a mitigation
request has been received and acted upon, and should also include an
update of the mitigation status. The MSSP may respond periodically
with additional updates on the mitigation status to in order to
enable the enterprise to make an informed decision on whether to
maintain or terminate the mitigation. An alternative approach would
be for the DOTS client mitigation request to include a time to live
(TTL) for the mitigation, which may also be extended by the client
should the attack still be ongoing as the TTL reaches expiration.
A variation of this use case may be that the enterprise is providing
a DDoS monitoring and analysis service to customers whose networks
may be protected by any one of a number of third-party providers.
The enterprise in question may integrate with these third-party
providers using DOTS and signal accordingly when a customer is
attacked - the MSSP may then manage the life-cycle of the attack
mitigation on behalf of the enterprise.
3.1.5. End-customer operating an application or service with an
integrated DOTS client
In this scenario, a Web server has a built-in mechanism to detect and
classify DDoS attacks, which also incorporates a DOTS client. When
an attack is detected, the self-defense mechanism is activated, and
local DDoS mitigation is initiated.
The DOTS client built into the Web server has been configured to
request DDoS mitigation services from an upstream transit provider or
overlay MSSP once specific attack traffic thresholds have been
reached, or certain network traffic conditions prevail. Once the
specified conditions have been met, the DOTS communications dialogue
and subsequent DDoS mitigation initiation and termination actions
described above take place.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
3.1.6. End-customer operating a CPE network infrastructure device with
an integrated DOTS client
Similar to the above use-case featuring applications or services with
built-in DDoS attack detection/classification and DOTS client
capabilities, in this scenario, an end-customer network
infrastructure CPE device such as a router, layer-3 switch, firewall,
or load-balance incorporates both the functionality required to
detect and classify incoming DDoS attacks as well as DOTS client
functionality.
The subsequent DOTS communications dialogue and resultant DDoS
mitigation initiation and termination activities take place in the
same manner as the use-cases described above.
3.1.7. End-customer with an out-of-band smartphone application
featuring DOTS client capabilities
This scenario would typically apply in a small office/home office
(SOHO) setting, where the end-customer does not have CPE equipment or
software capable of detecting/classifying/mitigating DDoS attack, yet
still has a requirement for on-demand DDoS mitigation services. A
smartphone application containing a DOTS client would be provided by
the upstream transit mitigation provider or overlay DDoS MSSP to the
SOHO end-customer; this application would allow a manual 'panic-
button' to request the initiation and termination of DDoS mitigation
services.
The DOTS communications dialogue and resultant DDoS mitigation
initiation/status reporting/termination actions would then take place
as in the other use-cases described above, with the end-customer DOTS
client serving to display received status information while DDoS
mitigation activities are taking place.
3.1.8. MSSP as an end-customer requesting overflow DDoS mitigation
assistance from other MSSPs
This is a more complex use-case involving multiple DDoS MSSPs,
whether transit operators, overlay MSSPs, or both. In this scenario,
an MSSP has entered into a pre-arranged DDoS mitigation assistance
agreement with one or more other DDoS MSSPs in order to ensure that
sufficient DDoS mitigation capacity and/or capabilities may be
activated in the event that a given DDoS attack threatens to
overwhelm the ability of a given DDoS MSSP to mitigate the attack on
its own.
BGP-based diversion (including relevant Letters of Authorization, or
LoAs), DNS-based diversion (including relevant LoAs), traffic re-
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
injection mechanisms such as Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
tunnels, provisioning of DDoS orchestration systems, et. al. must be
arranged in advance between the DDoS MSSPs which are parties to the
agreement. They should also be tested on a regular basis.
When a DDoS MSSP which is party to the agreement is nearing its
capacity or ability to mitigate a given DDoS attack traffic, the DOTS
client integrated with the MSSP DDoS mitigation orchestration system
signals partner MSSPs to initiate network traffic diversion and DDoS
mitigation activities. Ongoing attack and mitigation status messages
may be passed between the DDoS MSSPs, and between the requesting MSSP
and the ultimate end-customer of the attack.
The DOTS dialogues and resultant DDoS mitigation-related activities
in this scenario progress as described in the other use-cases
detailed above. Once the requesting DDoS MSSP is confident that the
DDoS attack has either ceased or has fallen to levels of traffic/
complexity which they can handle on their own, the requesting DDoS
MSSP DOTS client sends mitigation termination requests to the
participating overflow DDoS MSSPs.
3.2. Intra-domain Use Cases
3.2.1. Suppression of outbound DDoS traffic originating from a consumer
broadband access network
While most DDoS defenses concentrate on inbound DDoS attacks
ingressing from direct peering links or upstream transit providers,
the DDoS attack traffic in question originates from one or more
Internet-connected networks. In some cases, compromised devices
residing on the local networks of broadband access customers are used
to directly generate this DDoS attack traffic; in others,
misconfigured devices residing on said local customer networks are
exploited by attackers to launch reflection/amplification DDoS
attacks. In either scenario, the outbound DDoS traffic emanating
from these devices can be just as disruptive as an inbound DDoS
attack, and can cause disruption for substantial proportions of the
broadband access network operator's customer base.
Some broadband access network operators provide CPE devices (DSL
modems/routers, cablemodems, FTTH routers, etc.) to their end-
customers. Others allow end-customers to provide their own CPE
devices. Many will either provide CPE devices or allow end-customers
to supply their own.
Broadband access network operators typically have mechanisms to
detect and classify both inbound and outbound DDoS attacks, utilizing
flow telemetry exported from their peering/transit and customer
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
aggregation routers. In the event of an outbound DDoS attack, they
may make use of internally-developed systems which leverage their
subscriber-management systems to de-provision end-customers who are
sourcing outbound DDoS traffic; in some cases, they may have
implemented quarantine systems to block all outbound traffic sourced
from the offending end-customers. In either case, the perceived
disruption of the end-customer's Internet access often prompts a
help-desk call, which erodes the margins of the broadband access
provider and can cause end-customer dissatisfaction.
Increasingly, CPE devices themselves are targeted by attackers who
exploit security flaws in these devices in order to compromise them
and subsume them into botnets, and then leverage them to launch
outbound DDoS attacks. In all of the described scenarios, the end-
customers are unaware that their computers and/or CPE devices have
been compromised and are being used to launch outbound DDoS attacks -
however, they may notice a degradation of their Internet connectivity
as a result of outbound bandwidth consumption or other disruption.
By deploying DOTS-enabled telemetry systems and CPE devices (and
possibly requiring DOTS functionality in customer-provided CPE
devices), broadband access providers can utilize a standards-based
mechanism to suppress outbound DDoS attack traffic while optionally
allowing legitimate end-customer traffic to proceed unmolested.
In order to achieve this capability, the telemetry analysis system
utilized by the broadband access provider must have DOTS client
functionality, and the end-customer CPE devices must have DOTS server
functionality. When the telemetry analysis system detects and
classifies an outbound DDoS attack sourced from one or more end-
customer networks/devices, the DOTS client of the telemetry analysis
system sends a DOTS request to the DOTS server implemented on the CPE
devices, requesting local mitigation assistance in suppressing either
the identified outbound DDoS traffic, or all outbound traffic sourced
from the end-customer networks/devices. The DOTS server residing
within the CPE device(s) would then perform predefined actions such
as implementing on-board access-control lists (ACLs) to suppress the
outbound traffic in question and prevent it from leaving the local
end-customer network(s).
Broadband access network operators may choose to implement a
quarantine of all or selected network traffic originating from end-
customer networks/devices which are sourcing outbound DDoS traffic,
redirecting traffic from interactive applications such as Web
browsers to an internal portal which informs the end-customer of the
quarantine action, and providing instructions for self-remediation
and/or helpdesk contact information.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
Quarantine systems for broadband access networks are typically
custom-developed and -maintained, and are generally deployed only by
a relatively small number of broadband access providers with
considerable internal software development and support capabilities.
By requiring the manufacturers of operator-supplied CPE devices to
implement DOTS server functionality, and requiring customer-provided
CPE devices to feature DOTS server functionality, broadband access
network operators who previously could not afford the development
expense of creating custom quarantine systems to integrate DOTS-
enabled network telemetry systems to act as DOTS clients and perform
effective quarantine of end-customer networks and devices until such
time as they have been remediated.
3.2.2. DDoS Orchestration
In this use case, one or multiple telemetry systems or monitoring
devices like a flow collector monitor a network -- typically an ISP
network. Upon detection of a DDoS attack, these telemetry systems
alert an orchestrator in charge of coordinating the various DDoS
mitigation systems within the domain. The telemetry systems may be
configured to provide some necessary or useful pieces of
informations, such as a preliminary analysis of the observation to
the orchestrator.
The orchestrator analyses the various information it receives from
specialized equipements, and elaborates one or multiple DDoS
mitigation strategies. In some case, a manual confirmation may also
be required to chose a proposed strategy or to start the DDoS
mitigation. The DDoS mitigation may consists in multiple steps such
as configuring the network, the various hardware or already
instantiated DDoS mitigation functions. In some cases, some specific
virtual DDoS mitigation functions need to be instantiated and
properly chained between each other. Eventually, the coordination of
the mitigation may involved external DDoS resources such as a transit
provider (Section 3.1.1) or an MSSP (Section 3.1.4).
The communication to trigger a DDoS mitigation between the telemetry
and monitoring systems and the orchestrator is performed using DOTS.
The telemetry systems implements a DOTS client while the Orchestrator
implements a DOTS server.
The communication between to select a DDoS strategy by a network
administrator and the orchestrator is also performed using DOTS. The
network administrator via its web interfaces implements a DOTS client
while the Orchestrator implements a DOTS server.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
The communication between the Orchestrator and the DDoS mitigation
systems is performed using DOTS. The Orchestrator implements a DOTS
client while the DDoS mitigation systems implement a DOTS server.
The configuration aspects of each DDoS mitigation systems, as well as
the instantiations of DDoS mitigation functions or network
configuration is not part of DOTS. Similarly the discovery of the
available DDoS mitigation functions is not part of DOTS.
+----------+
| network |C
| adminis |<-+
| trator | |
+----------+ |
| (internal)
+----------+ | S+--------------+ +-----------+
|telemetry/| +->| |C S| DDoS |+
|monitoring|<--->| Orchestrator |<--->| mitigation||
|systems |C S| |<-+ | systems ||
+----------+ +--------------+C | +-----------+|
| +----------+
|
| (external)
| +-----------+
| S| DDoS |
+->| mitigation|
| systems |
+-----------+
* C is for DOTS client functionality
* S is for DOTS server functionality
Figure 1: DDoS Orchestration
The telemetry systems monitor various traffic network and perform
their measurement tasks. They are configured so that when an event
or some measurements reach a predefined level to report a DOTS
mitigation request to the Orchestrator. The DOTS mitigation request
may be associated with some element such as specific reporting.
Upon receipt of the DOTS mitigation request from the telemetry
system, the orchestrator responds with an acknowledgement, to avoid
retransmission of the request for mitigation. The status of the DDoS
mitigation indicates the orchestrator is in an analysing phase. The
orchestrator begins collecting various informations from various
telemetry systems on the network in order to correlate the
measurements and provide an analyse of the event. Eventually, the
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
orchestrator may ask additional informations to the telemetry system
that just sent the DOTS request, however, the collection of these
information is performed outside DOTS.
The orchestrator may be configured to start a DDoS mitigation upon
approval from a network administrator. The analysis from the
orchestrator is reported to the network administrator via a web
interface. If the network administrator decides to start the
mitigation, she order through her web interface a DOTS client to send
a request for DDoS mitigation. This request is expected to be
associated with a context that identifies the DDoS mitigation
selected.
Upon receiving the DOTS request for DDoS mitigation from the network
administrator, the orchestrator orchestrates the DDoS mitigation
according to the specified strategy. It status first indicates the
DDoS mitigation is starting while not effective.
Orchestration of the DDoS mitigation systems works similarly as
described in Section 3.1.1 or Section 3.1.4. The orchestrator
indicates with its status the DDoS Mitigation is effective.
When the DDoS mitigation is finished on the DDoS mitigation systems,
the orchestrator indicates to the Telemetry systems as well as to the
network administrator the DDoS mitigation is finished.
4. Security Considerations
DOTS is at risk from three primary attacks: DOTS agent impersonation,
traffic injection, and signaling blocking. The DOTS protocol MUST be
designed for minimal data transfer to address the blocking risk.
Impersonation and traffic injection mitigation can be managed through
current secure communications best practices. DOTS is not subject to
anything new in this area. One consideration could be to minimize
the security technologies in use at any one time. The more needed,
the greater the risk of failures coming from assumptions on one
technology providing protection that it does not in the presence of
another technology.
Additional details of DOTS security requirements may be found in
[I-D.ietf-dots-requirements].
5. IANA Considerations
No IANA considerations exist for this document at this time.
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
6. Acknowledgments
TBD
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
7.2. Informative References
[APACHE] "Apache mod_security", n.d.,
<https://www.modsecurity.org>.
[I-D.ietf-dots-requirements]
Mortensen, A., Moskowitz, R., and T. Reddy, "Distributed
Denial of Service (DDoS) Open Threat Signaling
Requirements", draft-ietf-dots-requirements-05 (work in
progress), June 2017.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC7368] Chown, T., Ed., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J.
Weil, "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles",
RFC 7368, DOI 10.17487/RFC7368, October 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368>.
[RRL] "BIND RRL", August 2014,
<https://deepthought.isc.org/article/AA-00994/0/Using-the-
Response-Rate-Limiting-Feature-in-BIND-9.10.html>.
Authors' Addresses
Roland Dobbins
Arbor Networks
Singapore
EMail: rdobbins@arbor.net
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DOTS Use Cases July 2017
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
8400 boulevard Decarie
Montreal, QC H4P 2N2
Canada
EMail: daniel.migault@ericsson.com
Stefan Fouant
USA
EMail: stefan.fouant@copperriverit.com
Robert Moskowitz
HTT Consulting
Oak Park, MI 48237
USA
EMail: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com
Nik Teague
Verisign
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
EMail: nteague@verisign.com
Liang Xia
Huawei
No. 101, Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing
China
EMail: Frank.xialiang@huawei.com
Kaname Nishizuka
NTT Communications
GranPark 16F 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
EMail: kaname@nttv6.jp
Dobbins, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 16]