Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt

[Rafa Marin Lopez <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yoav:

> El 21 jul 2019, a las 3:23, Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> escribió:
> 
> Hi, Valery
> 
> [no hats]
> 
> Thanks for that.
> 
> I think this demonstrates that the current document is not enough and we will need some follow-up documents explaining when to use either case.

[Authors] The objective of the current document is to present the idea and the interfaces to make things possible. Once we have this, we have also to work on performance analysis, experimentation (we are actually working on this already) and other uses cases.

In any case, we are more than happy to contribute on those potential documents, of course. 

> 
> I don’t think it’s very useful for the controller to distribute a policy (SPD entries) but no SAs (SAD entries) in the IKE-less case.  It makes sense in the IKE case because the NSFs can then use IKE to generate the SAs, but in the IKE-less case that would mean that one NSF gets a packet that should be protected, sends a message to the controller, which generates an SA and sends it to both the requester and the other NSF.  This seems high latency.

[Authors] What you have just described is the proactive vs reactive mode of operation that you can find in SDN-based networks. In our case, in the reactive mode, you install the SPD first and waits for a sadb_acquire notification. In the proactive mode you install the IPsec SAs at the same time. In fact, section 7.1 (Figure 4) in our I-D assumes proactive (step 2)

   2.  The Security Controller translates the flow-based security
       policies into IPsec SPD and SAD entries.

Clearly there are advantages and disadvantages in proactive and reactive models, as it may happen in Openflow network. For example, proactive reduces latency but it may create unnecessary state in the NSFs. Reactive increases latency but the state is created in the NSFs just when it is required. You can install rules to avoid a PACKET_IN (the “notification”) so you avoid the delay. As I mentioned to Valery, all of this is expected and assumed in the SDN paradigm (the IKE-less is the most similar to SDN paradigm nowadays). 

As per “high latency” I would say “higher latency”. And that’s true. The latency increases (it is reactive mode) but this latency is generally assumable in SDN networks (until certain level of tolerance, of course). In fact you can find interesting studies out there about this in Openflow networks. 

> 
> I think the case for IKE-less is where the controller sends SPD entries and SAD entries at the same time (perhaps later updating the SAD entries to rekey).
> In that case the action of the controller is to bring up a tunnel.  For example, if the user (or application) decides that communications between node A and node B should be encrypted, the controller will send both policy and keys at the same time to make that tunnel.

[Authors] This would be the proactive mode, very valid to reduce latency. But I assume it is a decision for the SC to make. Right now the YANG model admits both cases (proactive and reactive). In fact an hybrid (proactive for some flows and reactive for others) might be possible.

Best Regards.
> 
> Yoav
> 
>> On 20 Jul 2019, at 10:38, Valery Smyslov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>>  
>> thank you for updating the document. I still think that some aspect
>> of IKE-less use case are not discussed yet (well, probably they are not 
>> "serious", depending on one's definition of "serious").
>>  
>> Unlike IKE case. which we can consider as mostly static configuration,
>> the IKE-less case is a dynamic one. If IPsec SA are being created 
>> on demand (via kernel-acquire) and the traffic volume is high,
>> then depending on the IPsec policy IKE-less case can become 
>> a highly dynamic, which implies additional requirement on both
>> the network connecting SC and NSF and the performance of the protocol used to 
>> secure their communications. In other words, in IKE case the communication
>> between IKE daemon and kernel is seamless, while in IKE-less
>> case the communication between NSF ("kernel") and SC adds
>> noticeable delay (and can potentially add quite a long delay),
>> which can influence total performance of the system.
>>  
>> Generally IKE-less case requires more communications between
>> different nodes to establish or rekey IPsec SA, than IKE case
>> (I assume that IKE SA is already established), that may have
>> an impact on high-speed networks with short-lived IPsec SAs,
>> especially if they are created per transport connection
>> (say one IPsec SA for one TCP session).
>>  
>> I believe, that SC's task of managing IPsec SAs in IKE-less case 
>> may become quite complex, especially because due to the
>> additional delay, introduced by the network, the picture of the
>> state of the SAs the SC has can become inaccurate (well, 
>> it will always be inaccurate, but with short delays it doesn't matter).
>> Just an example. Consider an SC receives a signal from NSF that an SA
>> is soft expired and starts rekeying process by first installing a new
>> pair of inbound SAs. It successfully installs them on the NSF
>> it receives notification from, but then it receives a notification
>> that the other NSF has rebooted, so it must clear all the SAs on
>> its peers, including the just installed new one (which is only
>> half-done). There seems to be a lot of nuances, and the document 
>> completely ignores them. Not that I think that the task
>> is impossible, but the algorithm of managing the SAs can become
>> quite complex and possibly unreliable.
>>  
>> I didn't find this discussion in the draft (sorry if I missed it).
>>  
>> Regards,
>> Valery.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Thanks for getting this done and published.
>>  
>> We will wait with requesting publication until the I2NSF session next week.  Between now and then, please re-read the draft and send a message to the list is something is seriously wrong.
>>  
>> Barring any such shouting, we will request publication right after the meeting.
>>  
>> Thanks again,
>>  
>> Linda and Yoav
>> 
>> 
>>> On 16 Jul 2019, at 15:42, Rafa Marin-Lopez <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Dear all:
>>> 
>>> We submitted a new version of the I-D (v05) where we have applied several changes. In the following you have a summary of the main changes, which we will expand/explain during our presentation: 
>>> 
>>> - We have dealt with YANG doctors’ review (Martin's)
>>> 
>>> - We have dealt with Paul Wouters’ comments and Tero’s comments.
>>>  
>>> - We have added more specific text in the descriptions.
>>> 
>>> - Notifications have a simpler format now since most of the information that contained in the past is already handled by the Security Controller.
>>> 
>>> - State data has been reduced. For example, in IKE case, most of the information is related with IKE and not with the specific details about IPsec SAs that IKE handles (after all, IKE can abstract this information from the Security Controller).
>>>  
>>> - We have included text in the security section to discuss about the default IPsec policies that should be in the NSF when it starts before contacting with the SC such as the IPsec policies required to allow traffic between the SC and the NSF.
>>>  
>>> - We have added a subsection 5.3.4 about NSF discovery by the Security Controller.
>>> 
>>> - In order to specify the crypto-algorithms we have used a simple approach by including an integer and adding a text pointing the IANA in the reference clause. For example:
>>> 
>>> typedef encryption-algorithm-type {
>>>            type uint32;
>>>            description 
>>>                "The encryption algorithm is specified with a 32-bit
>>>                number extracted from IANA Registry. The acceptable
>>>                values MUST follow the requirement levels for
>>>                encryption algorithms for ESP and IKEv2.";
>>>            reference 
>>>                 "IANA Registry- Transform Type 1 - Encryption
>>>                 Algorithm Transform IDs. RFC 8221 - Cryptographic
>>>                 Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage
>>>                 Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)
>>>                 and Authentication Header (AH) and RFC 8247 -
>>>                 Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage
>>>                 Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol
>>>                 Version 2 (IKEv2).";
>>>        }
>>>  
>>> - We have included three additional Annexes with examples in about the usage of the YANG model.
>>>  
>>> - We have performed pyang --lint --lint-ensure-hyphenated-names and pyang -f yang --yang-line-length 69 in our model without warnings.
>>>  
>>> Best Regards.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>>>>  
>>>> De: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> Asunto: [I2nsf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt
>>>> Fecha: 7 de julio de 2019, 23:34:03 CEST
>>>> Para: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> Responder a: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>> This draft is a work item of the Interface to Network Security Functions WG of the IETF.
>>>> 
>>>>        Title           : Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection
>>>>        Authors         : Rafa Marin-Lopez
>>>>                          Gabriel Lopez-Millan
>>>>                          Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia
>>>>            Filename        : draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt
>>>>            Pages           : 81
>>>>            Date            : 2019-07-07
>>>> 
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>   This document describes how providing IPsec-based flow protection by
>>>>   means of a Software-Defined Network (SDN) controller (aka.  Security
>>>>   Controller) and establishes the requirements to support this service.
>>>>   It considers two main well-known scenarios in IPsec: (i) gateway-to-
>>>>   gateway and (ii) host-to-host.  The SDN-based service described in
>>>>   this document allows the distribution and monitoring of IPsec
>>>>   information from a Security Controller to one or several flow-based
>>>>   Network Security Function (NSF).  The NSFs implement IPsec to protect
>>>>   data traffic between network resources.
>>>> 
>>>>   The document focuses on the NSF Facing Interface by providing models
>>>>   for configuration and state data required to allow the Security
>>>>   Controller to configure the IPsec databases (SPD, SAD, PAD) and IKEv2
>>>>   to establish Security Associations with a reduced intervention of the
>>>>   network administrator.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection/>
>>>> 
>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05>
>>>> 
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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 <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
>>>> 
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> I2nsf mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>
>>>  
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
>>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
>>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain
>>> Telf: [phone] Fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> I2nsf mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec