Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 16 July 2019 08:05 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52997120059 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 01:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xAPtzquUGVpu for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 01:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF5D9120020 for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 01:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45ntHX2kkYz22GW; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 10:05:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.48]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45ntHX23w6zDq7h; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 10:05:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM32.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::81c9:5f:b9c5:1241%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 10:05:28 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: kaname nishizuka <kaname@nttv6.jp>
CC: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue
Thread-Index: AQHU/2BvJUcq+7jYY0mriQALnDahkabNWozQ
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:05:27 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EAE4D52@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA649B4@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BYAPR16MB27909F467FFE57F380015E94EA3E0@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA66FEC@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroo t.infra.ftgroup> <BYAPR16MB279071FE429E252221521470EA390@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA67156@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BYAPR16MB2790D9396449CF75422C010CEA390@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <03f901d4fe6f$98f00a00$cad01e00$@jpshallow.com> <BYAPR16MB2790B418CFE55D99C282FA71EA390@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA6725D@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BYAPR16MB2790D07ADECEBA6DAD156B5CEA390@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA6736E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BYAPR16MB2790A37C1A6980D996B92B6CEA390@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <ee351f86-a36d-1e2d-ab02-418a7359285e@nttv6.jp>
In-Reply-To: <ee351f86-a36d-1e2d-ab02-418a7359285e@nttv6.jp>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/dKu2F8C-UIGL40Hv_Veh1Jcbfck>
Subject: Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:05:32 -0000
Hi Kaname, > I'd like to check the new DOTS telemetry specification I-D and see if a > reference from the signal-filter-control is needed. Now that the telemetry I-D is available (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-dots-telemetry-00), please let us know whether you have comments. Thanks. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : kaname nishizuka [mailto:kaname@nttv6.jp] > Envoyé : mardi 30 avril 2019 16:24 > À : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Jon Shallow; > dots@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue > > Hi, > > > Looks like a candidate item in a separate DOTS telemetry specification > I-D, > rather than restricting it to the filter control case. > I agree with this. > At the usecase(2) that Tiru raised, per ACL traffic counter would be > useful but it's not limited to the ACLs activated by signal-filter- > control. > "activate-when-mitigating" ACL related information is one of the example. > It can be decoupled with the resources created by a signal-filter-control. > > I'm in favor of this Jon's comment because it clarifies the original > behavior of a signal-filter-control. > > The DOTS server will have a limited (only because they have to be > previously defined) set of (possibly inactivated) ACLS on the server. If > the "standard" white/black list are unable to bring the inbound pipe back > to not being flooded, then a (likely global for the DOTS client's > networks) Rate-Limit ACL must be brought in. Once the Inbound pipe is > available, then analysis of the data reaching the DOTs client will show > the top users which then need their own limiting (black or rate-limit) ACL > set up over the data channel. At this point the Rate-Limit ACL can > removed to see if things are stable again. > I'd like to check the new DOTS telemetry specification I-D and see if a > reference from the signal-filter-control is needed. > > regards, > Kaname > > > On 2019/04/29 21:58, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > >> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 6:27 PM > >> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>; Jon Shallow <supjps- > >> ietf@jpshallow.com>; kaname nishizuka <kaname@nttv6.jp>; dots@ietf.org > >> 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. > >> > >> Tiru, > >> > >> Looks like a candidate item in a separate DOTS telemetry specification > I-D, > >> rather than restricting it to the filter control case. > >> > >> Hope this is OK with you. > > Yes, works for me. > > > > -Tiru > > > >> Cheers, > >> Med > >> > >>> -----Message d'origine----- > >>> De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>> [mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com] > >>> Envoyé : lundi 29 avril 2019 14:47 > >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Jon Shallow; kaname nishizuka; > >>> dots@ietf.org Objet : RE: [Dots] > >>> (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > >>>> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > >>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 5:05 PM > >>>> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>; Jon Shallow <supjps- > >>>> ietf@jpshallow.com>; kaname nishizuka <kaname@nttv6.jp>; > >>>> dots@ietf.org > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Tiru, > >>>> > >>>> I agree that we are approaching the problem with two different use > cases: > >>>> > >>>> (1) a client domain with is basically "consuming" services. I do > >>>> still > >>> think this > >>>> use case does not need to learn about the ACL stats. > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>>> (2) your case in which the client domain is "providing" services: I > >>>> still > >>> think > >>>> that the impact on business can be determined also using local > >>>> information (known patterns + rate-limit policy applied by the > >>>> client). If the goal is > >>> to > >>>> decide whether/when an alternate mitigator is to be solicited, this > >>>> can deterministically rely upon "status" set to 4 (Attack has > >>>> exceeded the mitigation provider capacity) or deactivate back the > >>>> rate-limit ACL + local observation. Please remember that local > >>>> observation is needed for efficacy update. > >>> "Attack has exceeded" status message does not convey the details the > >>> traffic rate-limited, and the client needs to understand the attack > >>> scale to figure out suitable alternate mitigation provider. It is a > >>> critical DOTS telemetry that needs to be conveyed in the signal > >>> channel and cannot be propagated in the data channel during an massive > >> attack. > >>> Cheers, > >>> -Tiru > >>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Med > >>>> > >>>>> -----Message d'origine----- > >>>>> De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>>> [mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com] > >>>>> Envoyé : lundi 29 avril 2019 12:18 À : Jon Shallow; BOUCADAIR > >>>>> Mohamed TGI/OLN; kaname nishizuka; dots@ietf.org Objet : RE: > >>>>> [Dots] > >>>>> (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com> > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 3:11 PM > >>>>>> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>>>> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>; > >>>>>> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; kaname nishizuka > >>>> <kaname@nttv6.jp>; > >>>>>> dots@ietf.org > >>>>>> 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, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> See inline, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jon > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Dots [mailto: dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Konda, > >>>>>>> Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>>>>> Sent: 29 April 2019 10:22 > >>>>>>> To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Jon Shallow; 'kaname > >>>>>>> nishizuka'; dots@ietf.org > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) > >>>>>>> ACL Stats issue > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > >>>>>>> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:46 PM > >>>>>>>> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>>>>> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>; > >>>>>>>> Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>; 'kaname nishizuka' > >>>>>>>> <kaname@nttv6.jp>; dots@ietf.org > >>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>> (Focusing on this particular point). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>>>>>>> [mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com] > >>>>>>>>> Envoyé : lundi 29 avril 2019 10:52 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed > >>>>>>>>> TGI/OLN; Jon Shallow; 'kaname nishizuka'; dots@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>> Objet > >>>>>>>>> : RE: [Dots] > >>>>>>>>> (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) ACL Stats issue > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ACL-specific stats and mitigation stats will give a > >>>>>>>>>>>> clear > >>>>>>>>>>>>> picture of the traffic rate-limited, bad traffic > >>>>>>>>>>>>> dropped by the DDoS mitigation system, and using > >>>>>>>>>>>>> these stats the DOTS client can heuristically > >>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the amount of legitimate traffic dropped > >>>>>>>>>>>>> because of rate-limit and the impact of the attack > >>>>>>> on its > >>>>>>>> service. > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Med] The impact can be observed locally (e.g., bad > >>>>>>>>>>>> QoS, inability to > >>>>>>>>>>> access a > >>>>>>>>>>>> service, instable connectivity, etc.). I still don’t > >>>>>>>>>>>> see how sharing the > >>>>>>>>>>> ACL stats > >>>>>>>>>>>> will be helpful here. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A DOTS client can preinstall the same rate-limit > >>>>>>>>>>>> filter with but with > >>>>>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>>>> policies. It can select the appropriate ACL to > >>>>>>>>>>>> activate/deactivate based on local experience. > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't get how the local experience will help the > >>>>>>>>>>> client pick an alternate mitigation provider who can > >>>>>>>>>>> handle the > >>> attack > >>>> scale. > >>>>>>>>>> [Med] Modern CPEs include automated features to assess > >>>>>>>>>> the availability of services such as VoIP, IPTV, etc. > >>>>>>>>>> The DOTS client can be fed with input > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> these modules and react accordingly. > >>>>>>>> [Med] s/client/server. > >>>>>> Is this correct? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I meant the target network cannot infer the amount of > >>>>>>>>> legitimate traffic (or infer the number of users) unable > >>>>>>>>> to use its service because of the rate- limit action. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [Med] The amount of traffic is not required to assess the > >>>>>>>> availability of "nominal" services (the example above). What > >>>>>>>> is really important is > >>>>>>> whether > >>>>>>>> some critical services are available. That information can > >>>>>>>> be determined > >>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>> needing the ACL stats. > >>>>>>> I am not referring to "nominal" services or critical resources. > >>>>>>> For instance, consider Netflix is not accessible to a large > >>>>>>> number of users because of the rate-limit action. > >>>>>> The DOTS server will have a limited (only because they have to > >>>>>> be > >>>>> previously > >>>>>> defined) set of (possibly inactivated) ACLS on the server. If > >>>>>> the > >>>>> "standard" > >>>>>> white/black list are unable to bring the inbound pipe back to > >>>>>> not being flooded, then a (likely global for the DOTS client's > >>>>>> networks) Rate-Limit > >>>>> ACL > >>>>>> must be brought in. Once the Inbound pipe is available, then > >>>>>> analysis of > >>>>> the > >>>>>> data reaching the DOTs client will show the top users which then > >>>>>> need their own limiting (black or rate-limit) ACL set up over > >>>>>> the data channel. At > >>>>> this > >>>>>> point the Rate-Limit ACL can removed to see if things are stable > again. > >>>>>> [I agree that the CPE may not have this top usage capability] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If Netflix (or similar) has a priority when under attack, then > >>>>>> this needs > >>>>> to be > >>>>>> added into a White ACL which can be done once the inbound pipe > >>>>>> is not flooded (or be a part of the standard white lists) > >>>>> I think we are discussing two different use cases. My attack use > >>>>> case is Netflix content provider is under volumetric DDoS attack, > >>>>> and if the rate- limit ACL is configured using the DOTS signal > >>>>> channel because the DDoS mitigation provider cannot handle all the > >>>>> attack traffic. The rate-limit ACL stats will help Netflix > >>>>> understand the scale of the attack, impact on the current business > >>>>> because of the rate-limit action (e.g. based on the amount of > >>>>> traffic dropped by DMS, infer the amount of good traffic dropped > >>>>> by the rate-limit ACL action, and infer the number of users who > >>>>> cannot access its service), and if the attack lasts for several > >>>>> days/weeks help identify an alternate mitigation provider capable > >>>>> of handling the attack (e.g. Krebs was initially using Akamai and > >>>>> eventually got protected by Google to handle > >>> the > >>>> massive attack). > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> -Tiru > >>>>> > >>>>>> ~jon > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Tiru > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Dots mailing list > >>>>>>> Dots@ietf.org > >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
- [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control) AC… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… kaname nishizuka
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Jon Shallow
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Jon Shallow
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… kaname nishizuka
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… kaname nishizuka
- Re: [Dots] (draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control… mohamed.boucadair