Network Working Group D. von Hugo
Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Sarikaya
Expires: November 15, 2019 Denpel Informatique
L. Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
A. Petrescu
CEA, LIST
K. Sun
Soongsil University
U. Fattore
NEC
May 14, 2019
Problem Statement for Secure End to End Privacy in IdLoc Systems
draft-xyz-pidloc-ps-00.txt
Abstract
Efficient and service aware flexible end-to-end routing in future
communication networks is achieved by routing protocol approaches
making use of Identifier Locator separation systems. Since these
systems require a correlation between identifiers and location which
might allow tracking and misusage of individuals' identities and
locations such operation demands for highly secure measures to
preserve privacy of users and devices. This document tries to
identify and describe typical use cases and derive thereof
requirements to be fulfilled by privacy preserving Identifier-Locator
split (PidLoc) approaches.
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 November 15, 2019.
von Hugo, et al. Expires November 15, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Problem Statement May 2019
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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Identifier Locator Separation Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Industrial IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. 5G Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Cloud Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. Vehicular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. PIdLoc Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Forthcoming future communication systems which are currently under
specification by standardization organizations try to achieve higher
resource efficiency and flexibility as compared to currently deployed
and operated networks. Independent of specific access technologies
multiple applications shall be served with different levels of
policy- driven mobility support and quality of service in terms of
bandwidth, latency, error probability etc. Current practice of IP
address usage includes semantics as session identification as well as
entity location and name resolution. Many networking and information
processing related topics as cloud computing, software defined
networking, network function virtualization, logical network slicing,
and convergence of multiple heterogeneous access and transport
von Hugo, et al. Expires November 15, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Problem Statement May 2019
technologies call for new approaches towards service specific and
optimized packet routing.
Promising proposals are Identifier Locator (Id-Loc) separation
systems like Identifier Locator Addressing (ILA), Identifier-Locator
Network Protocol (ILNP), Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), and
others.
Architectures and protocols for these approaches are already
documented in detail and are under continuous evolution in different
WGs. This document on the other hand attempts to identify potential
issues with respect to real-world deployment scenarios which may
demand for light- weight implementations of Id-Loc systems.
Especially the issues related to threads due to privacy violation of
devices and their users as well as location detection and movement
tracking may demand for specific countermeasures.
To provide a problem statement this draft documents common aspects
and differences of several Id-Loc approaches from a high-level
perspective and describes a set of use cases resulting in identified
requirements towards privacy and security.
2. Conventions and 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].
Identifier: An identifier is information to unambiguously identify an
entity or an entity group within a given scope. An identifier is the
equivalent of an End point identifier (EID) in The Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP). It may be visible in communications.
Locator: A locator is a routable network address. It may be
associated with an identifier and used for communication on the
network layer according to identifier locator split principle. A
locator is the equivalent of a Routing Locator (RLOC) in LISP or an
IP address in other cases.
3. Identifier Locator Separation Protocols
Identifier represents a communication end-point of an entity and may
not be routable. Locator also represents a communication end point,
i.e. its routable network address and thus can change if the entity
moves. A database called a mapping system needs to be used for
identifier to locator mapping. Identifiers are mapped to locators
for forwarding purposes. Mapping system has to handle mobility by
modifying identifier to locator mappings in the database.
von Hugo, et al. Expires November 15, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Problem Statement May 2019
To start the communication, a device needs to know the identifier of
the destination and then relies on a process to lookup on a network
identifier and return the locator(s). Note that both identifier and
locator can be carried in clear in packet headers.
Usage of identifiers readily available for public access raises
privacy issues. For public entities, it may be desirable to have
their fully qualified domain names or host names available for public
lookups by the clients however such is not the case in general for
the identifiers, e.g. for individuals roaming in a mobile network.
ILNP
Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [RFC6740] is a host- based
approach enabling mobility using mechanisms that are only deployed in
end-systems and do not require any router changes. ...
ILA
Identifier-Locator Addressing (ILA) [I-D.herbert-intarea-ila] uses
address transformation proposing to split an IPv6 address in 64-bit
identifier (lower address bits) and locator (higher address bits)
portions. The locator part is determined dynamically from a mapping
table that maintains associations between the location-independent
identifiers and topologically significant locators. ...
LISP
Locator/Id Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] is a network based
approach using mapping and encapsulation of packets proposing a LISP
architecture which provides a level of indirection for routing and
addressing performed at specific ingress/egress routers at the LISP
domain boundaries. LISP control plane protocol [RFC6833] can also be
applied to various other user plane protocols. Both LISP user plane
as control plane are under revision as [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], respectively. ...
4. Use Cases
The collection of use cases shall serve as starting point to derive
requirements to future solutions providing privacy and security in
generic Identifier Locator Split Approaches.
4.1. Industrial IoT
Sensors and other connected things in the industry are usually no
personal items (e.g. wearables) potentially revealing an indiduals
sensitive information but business assets which should be detected
von Hugo, et al. Expires November 15, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Problem Statement May 2019
only by authorised intra-company entities. Since the huge amount of
these things (massive IoT) as well as typical energy and bandwidth
constraints of battery-powered devices may pose a challenge to
traditional routing and security measures privacy enabled Id-Loc
split approaches are proposed as a viable approach here,
[I-D.nordmark-id-loc-privacy] ...
4.2. 5G Use Case
Upcoming new truely universal communication via so-called 5G systems
will demand for much more that (just) higher bandwidth and lower
latency. Integration of heterogeneous multiple access technologies
(both wireless and wireleine) controlled by a common converged core
network and the evolution to service-based flexile functionalities
instead of hard-coded network functions calls for new protocols both
on control and user (data) plane. While Id-Loc approach would serve
well here the challenge to provide a unique level of security and
privacy even for a lightweight routing and forwarding mechanism -
allowing for ease of deployment and migration from existing
operational network architecture - remains to be solved.
4.3. Cloud Use Case
The cloud, i.e. a set of distributed data centers for processing and
storage connected via highspeed transmission paths, is seen as
logical location for content and also for virtualized network
function instances and shall provide measures for easy re-location
and migration of these instances deployed as e.g. containers or
virtual machines. Id-Loc split routing protocols are proposed for
usage here while the topology of the cloud components and logical
correlations shall be invisible from outside. ...
4.4. Vehicular Networks
In vehicular networks use cases (e.g. for a future C-ITS, i.e.
Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems) there are some problems
related to privacy. Cars are mandated to beacon CAM messages
(cooperative awareness message - also denoted as basic service
message, BSM) very frequently (more than 1 per second). These
messages contain identifiers such as MAC addresses. They are unique
and visible in the public oui.txt file. They can be tracked. But
these are MAC addresses, not IP addresses.
If, in the future, cars beacon Router Advertisements as well, then
there is a risk in the src address of these RAs - the LL. They are
usually formed out of the MAC address, even though recent RFC7217
[RFC7217] give suggestion of using a random ID in the IID (Interface
Identifiers) (rather than the MAC address); the RFC stays silent
von Hugo, et al. Expires November 15, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Problem Statement May 2019
about the prefix length; since the RFC7217 method covers also the LL
addresses, and requires them to be RFC4291-like (64bit length), that
random ID is still of fixed length (64). Longer than 64 IIDs may
benefit privacy, since crypto attacks on them would be harder.
A variable length IID in link-local addresses may help create a
flexible identifier-locator split thus increasing privacy.
In addition C-ITS shall also allow to improve vehicular network based
services as e.g. predict traffic congestion along the route and
propose a re-direction towards alternative routes, or predict network
coverage along the foreseen path to adapt a critical service. This
on the other hand demands for knowledge of the actual route, i.e.
tracking of the vehicle. As was shown in [NYC_cab] even anonymizing
sometimes does not prevent from privacy breaches. ...
5. PIdLoc Requirements
TBD.
6. IANA Considerations
TBD.
7. Security Considerations
8. Acknowledgements
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 (work in progress),
November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 (work in progress), February
2019.
[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>.
von Hugo, et al. Expires November 15, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Problem Statement May 2019
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.herbert-intarea-ila]
Herbert, T. and P. Lapukhov, "Identifier-locator
addressing for IPv6", draft-herbert-intarea-ila-01 (work
in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]
Touch, J. and M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet
Architecture", draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-09 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17
(work in progress), November 2018.
[I-D.nordmark-id-loc-privacy]
Nordmark, E., "Privacy issues in ID/locator separation
systems", draft-nordmark-id-loc-privacy-00 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[NYC_cab] Douriez, et al., M., "Anonymizing NYC Taxi Data: Does It
Matter?", Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Data Science and
Advanced Analytics (DSAA'16) , pp. 140-148, 2016.
[RFC6740] Atkinson, RJ. and SN. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6740, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6740>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
von Hugo, et al. Expires November 15, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Pidloc Problem Statement May 2019
Authors' Addresses
Dirk von Hugo
Deutsche Telekom
Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7
D-64295 Darmstadt
Germany
Email: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Behcet Sarikaya
Denpel Informatique
Email: sarikaya@ieee.org
Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
Email: ggx@gigix.net
Alex Petrescu
CEA, LIST
Email: alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
Kyoungjae Sun
Soongsil University
Email: gomjae@dcn.ssu.ac.kr
Umberto Fattore
NEC
Email: Umberto.Fattore@neclab.eu
von Hugo, et al. Expires November 15, 2019 [Page 8]