Re: [Ideas] Fwd: Fwd: Re: WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Tue, 03 October 2017 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A164E126CB6; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 WSIPpnhDE5jc; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F0DB134904; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DWS31906; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:30:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 01:30:26 +0100
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.215]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.15]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:30:13 -0700
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "ideas@ietf.org" <ideas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ideas] Fwd: Fwd: Re: WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
Thread-Index: AQHTO5b3sMS7wpFzqkenmQiiy1KNcqLRQ67w
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 00:30:12 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A859E1@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <e476f817-580b-9083-48bb-72de1745f1c1@huitema.net> <67067a23-bb7f-08e4-3766-8802d8f3121f@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <67067a23-bb7f-08e4-3766-8802d8f3121f@huitema.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.49.137]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A859E1SJCEML701CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.59D2DA25.00D8, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.215, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 5ab36991a3cc495e53dfaa818919d83b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/zHkkeXX0xaTe3eRjSpUq16kvqKo>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Fwd: Fwd: Re: WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:30:35 -0000

Hi Christian,

In-Line [Uma]:

--
Uma C.

From: Ideas [mailto:ideas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Huitema
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:56 AM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;; ideas@ietf.org
Subject: [Ideas] Fwd: Fwd: Re: WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)


I just realized that I forget to copy this message to the IESG and IDEAS mailing lists. Sorry.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

Fwd: Re: WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

Date:

Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:06:46 -0700

From:

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net><mailto:huitema@huitema.net>

To:

IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org><mailto:ietf@ietf.org>



On 9/29/2017 9:13 AM, The IESG wrote:



> A new IETF WG has been proposed in the Routing Area. The IESG has not made

> any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is

> provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the

> IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>) by 2017-10-09.

...

>

> Network solutions based on the concept of Identifier-Locator separation are

> increasingly considered to support mobility, overlay networking for

> virtualization and multi-homing across heterogeneous access networks.



The problem there is that the same properties that facilitate routing

also facilitate tracking.



Consider a mobile node that switches from a Wi-Fi network to a cellular

network. In the current state of the art, there is no relation between

the Wi-Fi address and the cellular address. Intermediaries cannot

observe the traffic and deduce that two different flows of IP packets

originate from the same node. In contrast, with an ID/Loc architecture,

the two flows are associated with the same identifier, which can then be

used to track the movements of the device.



Similarly, consider a node that connects several times to the same

network, and each time uses IPv6 temporary addresses. The web servers

that it contact cannot use the IP addresses to correlate different

connections that happened at different times. This would change if the

identifier in an ID/LOC architecture remained constant.



Multipath TCP and planned multipath extensions of QUIC are example of

transport protocol that allow transport connections to use multiple

network paths simultaneously. In both cases, there s significant work

going on to ensure that intermediaries cannot easily associate the

traffic on the multiple paths with a single connection.



[Uma]: Mobility tracking as you explained could be important and should be considered in the threat analysis.

               Thanks for pointing the efforts in MPTCP/QUIC to mitigate this.

 If the

multi-homing function was delegated to an ID/LOC system, intermediaries

could potentially observe the identifiers and associate these connections.



[Uma]: True, but I would note this is respective data plane protocol  mechanism that should address this is in-line with Robert’s response (sounds like very good proposal to start with) ..





In short, careless applications of the ID/LOC architecture could easily

result in serious privacy issues. The proposed charter does include a

brief statement about privacy:



> - Analysis of the concepts of identity-identifier split and dynamic

> identifier changes, including their implications on anonymity and privacy.

> Explicitly, the framework must define privacy requirements and how potential

> extensions/solutions should meet them.



This is a good start, but the whole concept of "unique identifiers" is

scary, and I would like to see this expanded. For example, I would like

to see an explicit reference to a baseline, e.g. assuring no privacy

downgrade compared to IPv6 temporary addresses, or assuring that hosts

that elect to not be tracked when roaming across networks will not be.



 I

also know that there have been discussions of hiding identifiers from

intermediaries, and i would like to see that as an explicit goal of the

proposed WG.



[Uma]: I am not sure how this can be goal of IDEAS, which mostly talks about control plane aspects.



--

Christian Huitema