Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue

["Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 7:48 PM
> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> <[e-mail]>; Jon Shallow <supjps-
> [e-mail]>; 'kaname nishizuka' <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue
> 
> 
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Why it would be useful to share stats for ACLs activated via the signal channel
> but not for (pre-installed) ACLs that are automatically activated during
> mitigations ?

The rate-limit ACL activated via the signal channel is a last resort employed by the DOTS client to mitigate the volumetric attack, it has an adverse effect of blocking not just the attack traffic but also legitimate traffic, and potentially impacts the business of the victim (e.g. good users cannot leverage its service), hence it's stats look more critical to me. 

-Tiru

> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 25 avril 2019 16:13
> > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Jon Shallow; 'kaname nishizuka';
> > [e-mail] Objet : RE: [Dots]
> > (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail]
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 5:37 PM
> > > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > <[e-mail]>; Jon Shallow <supjps-
> > > [e-mail]>; 'kaname nishizuka' <[e-mail]>;
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL
> > > Stats issue
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tiru,
> > >
> > > Even if we assume that ACL-specific stats can be communicated via
> > > the
> > signal
> > > channel (which we don't have an agreement on it so far), this is not
> > specific
> > > to the filter-control spec but the same reasoning would apply for
> > > all ACLs instructed by the DOTS client (not only those that are
> > > adjusted during
> > attack
> > > times).
> >
> > My point is, If the ACL is activated using the signal channel, since
> > the ACL is part of the mitigation request, only the activated ACL
> > stats needs to be conveyed in the mitigation status.  Other ACLs
> > activated using data channel are not part of mitigation request, so no
> > need to convey their stats using the signal channel.
> >
> > -Tiru
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Med
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Envoyé : jeudi 25 avril 2019 13:04 À : Jon Shallow; 'kaname
> > > > nishizuka'; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; [e-mail] Objet : RE:
> > > > [Dots]
> > > > (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Dots <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jon Shallow
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:58 PM
> > > > > To: 'kaname nishizuka' <[e-mail]>;
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL
> > > > > Stats issue
> > > > >
> > > > > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > > > > click links
> > > > or
> > > > > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> > > > > content is safe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > The advantage of separating out the counters for the different
> > > > > ACLs is that the DOTS client can then determine what is being
> > > > > effective or
> > not.
> > > > However,
> > > > > if (signal) data is able to get from the DOTS server to the DOTS
> > > > > client,
> > > > then it
> > > > > is likely that the data channel will still be operable and can
> > > > > be used to
> > > > get
> > > > > these numbers so I still do not think that this should be over
> > > > > the signal channel.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that that the GET response (or observe response)
> > > > > bytes-dropped
> > > etc.
> > > > > should be the total dropped - i.e. the sum of the ACls and what
> > > > > the DMS is otherwise doing as it refers to the mitigation request.
> > > >
> > > > If the DOTS server knows the traffic dropped by ACLs and the
> > > > traffic dropped by DMS, why can't it provide this statistics
> > > > separately instead of summing it.  If the incoming link is
> > > > saturated, data channel will not function  but signal channel
> > > > (using UDP) will work and there is a good possibility that one of
> > > > the GET responses periodically sent will reach the client (As you
> > > > already know, DOTS signal
> > > channel is tolerant to high packet loss in one direction).
> > > >
> > > > -Tiru
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Dots [mailto: [e-mail]] On Behalf Of kaname
> > > > > > nishizuka
> > > > > > Sent: 25 April 2019 10:00
> > > > > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control)
> > > > > > ACL Stats issue
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Med, all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding with the issue, I'm not convinced of the benefit to
> > > > > > return the activated ACL statistics over signal-channel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The idea of this draft is based on this situation (quoted from
> > > > > > Jon's
> > > > > > comment):
> > > > > > (It is) very unreliable when the inbound pipe is running full.
> > > > > > If the pipe is not running full, then this information can be
> > > > > > obtained over the
> > > > data
> > > > > channel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ACL stats can be get over the data-channel. I don't see any
> > > > > > reason to reproduce the same function.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Further more, I don't think the DOTS server should notify that
> > > > > > DOTS client with the change by including the corresponding
> > > > > > acl-* parameters in an asynchronous notification.
> > > > > > The basic behavior is already written in the draft:
> > > > > >     This specification does not require any modification to
> > > > > > the
> > efficacy
> > > > > >     update and the withdrawal procedures defined in
> > > > > >     [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel].  In particular,
> > > > > > ACL-related
> > clauses
> > > > > >     are not included in a PUT request used to send an efficacy
> > > > > > update
> > and
> > > > > >     DELETE requests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If so, the server need not to store any resource about acl-*
> > > > > > per mitigation request, which make the function of the
> > > > > > signal-filter-control
> > > > > simple enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > Kaname
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2019/04/24 15:24, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We do have one pending issue to be resolved for this draft.
> > > > > > > The issue is
> > > > > > available at:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/boucadair/filter-control/issues/1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We need your feedback on this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Med
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- De : Dots
> > > > > > >> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
> > > > > > >> internet- [e-mail] Envoyé : mercredi 24 avril 2019
> > > > > > >> 07:34 À
> > :
> > > > > > >> [e-mail] Cc : [e-mail] Objet : [Dots] I-D
> > Action:
> > > > > > >> draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control-00.txt
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> > > > > > >> Internet-Drafts directories.
> > > > > > >> This draft is a work item of the DDoS Open Threat Signaling
> > > > > > >> WG of the
> > > > > > IETF.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>          Title           : Controlling Filtering Rules Using
> > > > Distributed
> > > > > > >> Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel
> > > > > > >>          Authors         : Kaname Nishizuka
> > > > > > >>                            Mohamed Boucadair
> > > > > > >>                            Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > > > > >>                            Takahiko Nagata
> > > > > > >> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control-00.txt
> > > > > > >> 	Pages           : 23
> > > > > > >> 	Date            : 2019-04-23
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Abstract:
> > > > > > >>     This document specifies an extension to the DOTS signal
> > channel
> > > so
> > > > > > >>     that DOTS clients can control their filtering rules
> > > > > > >> when an
> > attack
> > > > > > >>     mitigation is active.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     Particularly, this extension allows a DOTS client to
> > > > > > >> activate or
> > > > de-
> > > > > > >>     activate existing filtering rules during a DDoS attack.  The
> > > > > > >>     characterization of these filtering rules is supposed
> > > > > > >> to be
> > > > conveyed
> > > > > > >>     by a DOTS client during an idle time by means of the DOTS data
> > > > > > >>     channel protocol.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     Please update these statements within the document with
> > > > > > >> the
> > > RFC
> > > > > > >>     number to be assigned to this document:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     o  "This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX;"
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     o  "RFC XXXX: Controlling Filtering Rules Using
> > > > > > >> Distributed
> > > > Denial-
> > > > > > >>        of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal
> > > > > > >> Channel";
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     o  reference: RFC XXXX
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     o  [RFCXXXX]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     Please update these statements with the RFC number to
> > > > > > >> be assigned
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >>     the following documents:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     o  "RFC SSSS: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
> > Signaling
> > > > > > >>        (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification" (used to be
> > > > > > >>        [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel])
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     o  "RFC DDDD: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
> > Signaling
> > > > > > >>        (DOTS) Data Channel Specification" (used to be
> > > > > > >>        [I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel])
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     Please update the "revision" date of the YANG module.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > > > > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-signal-fil
> > > > > > >> ter-
> > > > > > >> cont
> > > > > > >> rol/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > > > > > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-c
> > > > > > >> ontr
> > > > > > >> ol-0
> > > > > > >> 0
> > > > > > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dots-signa
> > > > > > >> l-fi
> > > > > > >> lter
> > > > > > >> -control-
> > > > > > >> 00
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the
> > > > > > >> time of
> > > > > > submission
> > > > > > >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> > tools.ietf.org.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > > > > >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Dots mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots