A method for dots server deployment
draft-chen-dots-server-hierarchical-deployment-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Meiling Chen , Li Su , Jin Peng | ||
| Last updated | 2019-07-06 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-chen-dots-server-hierarchical-deployment-00
DOTS M. Chen
Internet-Draft Li. Su
Intended status: Informational Jin. Peng
Expires: January 7, 2020 CMCC
July 06, 2019
A method for dots server deployment
draft-chen-dots-server-hierarchical-deployment-00
Abstract
As DOTS is used for DDoS Mitigation signaling, In practice, there are
different deployment scenarios for DOTS agents deployment depending
on the network deployment mode. This document made an accommandation
for DOTS Server deployment which may be Suitable for ISP. The goal
is to provide some guidance for DOTS agents deployment.
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 https://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 7, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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
Chen, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft dots server hierarchical deployment July 2019
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. DOTS server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. DOTS server deployment inside an ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. DOTS server deployment between ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is a protocol to standardize real-
time signaling, threat-handling
requests[I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel], when attack target is under
attack, dots client send mitigation request to dots server for help,
If the mitigation request contains enough messages of the attack,
then the mitigator can respond very effectively.
In the architecture draft[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture], it is says
that this does not necessarily imply that the attack target and the
DOTS client have to be co-located in the same administrative domain,
but it is expected to be a common scenario. Although co-location of
DOTS server and mitigator within the same domain is expected to be a
common deployment model, it is assumed that operators may require
alternative models.
In the DOTS server discovery draft[I-D.ietf-dots-server-discovery],
it is says that a key point in the deployment of DOTS is the ability
of network operators to be able to onfigure DOTS clients with the
correct DOTS server(s) nformation consistently.
In the DOTS multihoming draft[I-D.ietf-dots-multihoming], it provides
deployment recommendations for DOTS client and DOTS gateway, it is
says when conveying a mitigation request to protect the attack
target, the DOTS client among the DOTS servers available Must select
a DOTS server whose network has assigned the prefixes from which
target prefixes and target IP addresses are derived. This implies
that id no appropriate DOTS server is found, the DOTS client must not
send the mitigation request to any DOTS server. So in this document,
Chen, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft dots server hierarchical deployment July 2019
we give some dots server deployment consideration as the title
suggests we prefer hierarchical deployment.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]
The readers should be familiar with the terms defined in
[I-D.ietf-dots-requirements] [I-D.ietf-dots-use-cases]
The terminology related to YANG data modules is defined in [RFC7950]
In addition, this document uses the terms defined below:
dots svr: abbreviation of dots server.
ISP: Internet service provider.
3. DOTS server Considerations
When take dots server deployment into consideration, one thing must
be involved is mitigator.so far, how many network devices can play
the role of mitigator, we make a summerized list as follows:
o Router.
o Special cleaning equipment, such as Flow clean device and clean
center.
o Network security equipment, such as firewall,IPS and WAF
Whether DOTS server can be deployed, the following conditions need to
be met:
o DOTS server has to interconnected with mitigator
o DOTS server can go directly to the mitigator which had best go
through without any other DOTS agents
o DOTS server has the permissions for scheduling and operations on
mitigator
o DOTS server has the ability to know the address of attack target
belong to which mitigator
Chen, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft dots server hierarchical deployment July 2019
4. DOTS server deployment inside an ISP
From the internal structure of ISP, the whole network can divide into
three parts logically. There are three most important routers:
backbone router, man(metropolitan area network) router, and IDC
router. When a ddos attack occurs, it must be one of the three cases
as follows, and the corresponding mitigator will responsible for
mitigation.
o only the lan network detected the attack, dots server3 will
receive mitigation request, and mitigator3 will act as the first
responsible mitigator.
o only the man network detected the attack, dots server2 will
receive mitigation request, then mitigator2 will act as the first
responsible mitigator.
o only the backbone network detected the attack, dots server1 will
receive mitigation request, then mitigator1 will act as the first
responsible mitigator.
o Attacks on the same attack target are found both in adjacent
areas, the upper network mitigator will act as the first
responsible mitigator. for example, dots server1 and dots server2
both received the mitigation request from attack target by dots
client, mitigator1 will responsible for ddos disposition(priority
ranking: mitigator1 > mitigator2 > mitigator3).
Chen, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft dots server hierarchical deployment July 2019
+---------+
|other ISP|
+---------+
.........|..........................
| backbone network
+---------------+ +----------+
|backbone router|-----|mitigator1|
+---------------+ +----------+
|dots svr1|
+---------+
..........|.................................
| metropolitan area network
+----------+ +----------+
|man router|-------|mitigator2|
+----------+ +----------+
|dots svr2|
+---------+
..........|.........................
| local area network
+----------+ +----------+
|IDC router|------|mitigator3|
+----------+ +----------+
|dots svr3|
+---------+
|
|
+-----------+ +-------------+
|dots client|-------|attack target|
+-----------+ +-------------+
Figure 1: DOTS Server Deployment
5. DOTS server deployment between ISPs
The coexistence of different operators is very common, coordination
between operators across networks is very important. Interdomain
attacks occur frequently, We recommend deploying the DOTS server at
the access point
o DDoS attack from one of other ISPs, for example, ISP A received
DDoS attack from ISP B or ISP C, then dots server C or dots server
B will receive the mitigation request.
o DDOS attack from two or more of other ISPs,for example, ISP A and
ISP B both start ddos attack to ISP C, then dots server A and dots
server B will both receive mitigation request from dots client C.
Chen, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft dots server hierarchical deployment July 2019
+-------------+ +-------------+
| ISP A |--------| ISP B |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| |dots svrA| | | |dots svrB| |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| |
+-------------+-------------+
|
+-------------+
| ISP C |
| +---------+ |
| |dots svrC| |
+-------------+
Figure 2: DOTS Server Deployment2
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. IANA Considerations
TBD
8. Acknowledgement
TBD
9. References
9.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
9.2. Informative References
Chen, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft dots server hierarchical deployment July 2019
[I-D.ietf-dots-architecture]
Mortensen, A., K, R., Andreasen, F., Teague, N., and R.
Compton, "Distributed-Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Architecture", draft-ietf-dots-
architecture-14 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-dots-multihoming]
Boucadair, M. and R. K, "Multi-homing Deployment
Considerations for Distributed-Denial-of-Service Open
Threat Signaling (DOTS)", draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-01
(work in progress), January 2019.
[I-D.ietf-dots-requirements]
Mortensen, A., K, R., and R. Moskowitz, "Distributed
Denial of Service (DDoS) Open Threat Signaling
Requirements", draft-ietf-dots-requirements-22 (work in
progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-dots-server-discovery]
Boucadair, M. and R. K, "Distributed-Denial-of-Service
Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Server Discovery", draft-
ietf-dots-server-discovery-04 (work in progress), June
2019.
[I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]
K, R., Boucadair, M., Patil, P., Mortensen, A., and N.
Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", draft-
ietf-dots-signal-channel-34 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-dots-use-cases]
Dobbins, R., Migault, D., Fouant, S., Moskowitz, R.,
Teague, N., Xia, L., and K. Nishizuka, "Use cases for DDoS
Open Threat Signaling", draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17 (work
in progress), January 2019.
Authors' Addresses
Meiling Chen
CMCC
32, Xuanwumen West
BeiJing , BeiJing 100053
China
Email: chenmeiling@chinamobile.com
Chen, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft dots server hierarchical deployment July 2019
Li Su
CMCC
32, Xuanwumen West
BeiJing 100053
China
Email: suli@chinamobile.com
Jin Peng
CMCC
32, Xuanwumen West
BeiJing 100053
China
Email: pengjin@chinamobile.com
Chen, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 8]