Re: VPN security vs SD-WAN security

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 25 July 2018 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55B8130E0F for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 K1xA0-CJfcPm for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA5F3130DD8 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0C158C4BC; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:12:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 188264402CB; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:12:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:12:04 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: VPN security vs SD-WAN security
Message-ID: <20180725181203.oafh3d74xi7mkjcc@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CA+b+ERmfOaFMURD2eNPScs2SZ88rOEfGXZZJsqGDWX3M6bTY-g@mail.gmail.com> <0cb8f15b-7538-500c-dda3-915bf9814f94@gmail.com> <5D10C0C4-B93D-463F-A071-EEA6F35506CD@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERkqrr4Wr+Wy9q81SpyWi7H1s=z_RAvbc3Rbddvpgb7Xpg@mail.gmail.com> <44F647C7-BF88-469D-82C6-1509A57EAD31@gmail.com> <20180725155008.4yg4jkud6hsfdboh@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CA+b+ERmLpWdzJT+qhgVVni9gruGyY33pkUa0nCrxh8aAU9cN+A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERmLpWdzJT+qhgVVni9gruGyY33pkUa0nCrxh8aAU9cN+A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/8Eyfzcq3VKMJLFF6_v1ypG0h5eU>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:12:13 -0000

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 06:34:38PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Agreed.
> 
> And very honestly I am not sure if accomplishing high service robustness is
> best done via complicating any particular network or rather freedom to
> dynamically choose your end to end path among many cadidate and globally
> independent transports.

Sure, the financial services industry has a long history of doing that.
And probably continues to learn about unexpected shared fates every day.
Would be great to see a nice BCP about all those aspects one day. Especially
when it includes those non-packet-networking dependencies. Constructions
that unexpectedly kill whats supposed to be two independent fiber trunks,
redundant power supplies that fail together, shared operations infra, etc. pp.

And there are new risks coming up. The more vendors start to reduce cost
sharing single-sourced (likely open source) software, the more that becomes
a single point of failure for example.

> That was what I meant by *wise* use of Internet in the former message.

Right. Except that i fear its less and less failure diverse as well
the more the market evolves. Cost reduction does not favor diversity.

> Vendor locking is as bad as operator's lock.

Or single open source lock.

You don't only want to be accepting of diversity, you want to encourage/enforce it.

Heck. Now i found my reason to justify the ongoing coexistance of ISIS and OSPF
that i usually lament. Except that this new LSR WG will probably
create a lot more consistency and less diversity ;-)

Cheers
    Toerless
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 17:50 Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>; wrote:
> 
> > IMHO the main issue is that virtualization of networks and
> > any expectation of resource guarantees in the face of attacks opens
> > up a whole new slew of issues (attacks against shared infra)
> > which is today outside the scope of IETF focus because it does
> > not relate to our outdated definition of what qualifies for
> > IETF standardization.
> >
> > If we want to help create secure virtualized network services we
> > need to have a lot more opinions about box internal behaviors
> > even to the extent of defining standards about them. Vendors
> > will suck at this if left unsupervised.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 01:32:25PM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > Perhaps the right thing here is for you to propose text to Fred on how
> > to make sure his traffic is safe from the types of state-sponsored attack
> > that an air traffic system might need to withstand?
> > >
> > > Stewart
> > >
> > > > On 25 Jul 2018, at 13:24, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > True network slicing for IP networks means either waist of resources
> > or very strict multi-level queuing at each hop and 100% ingress traffic
> > policing. Yet while this has a chance to work during normal operation at
> > the time of even regular failures this all pretty much melts like cheese on
> > a good sandwich.
> > > >
> > > > It is going to be very interesting to compare how single complex
> > sliced network compares for any end to end robust transport from N normal
> > simple IP backbones and end to end SLA based millisecond switch over
> > between one and another on a per flow basis. Also let's note then while the
> > former is still to the best of my knowledge a draft the latter is already
> > deployed globally in 100s of networks.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > R.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>;
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Stewart Bryant <
> > stewart..bryant@gmail.com>;
> > > >> Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 5:55 AM
> > > >> To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>;
> > > >> Cc: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>;
> > > >> Subject: Re: VPN security vs SD-WAN security
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 25/07/2018 10:40, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> /* Adjusting the subject ... */
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ???Hello ???
> > > >>
> > > >> Stewart,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ???You have made the below comment in the other thread we are having:
> > ???
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Indeed, I would have expected this to be on a secure network of some
> > sort either purely
> > > >> private or some form of VPN. However, I am sure I read in your text
> > that you were
> > > >> considering using the Public Internet much in the way of SD-WAN.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ???Would you mind as extensively as you can expand on the above
> > statement ?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Specifically on what basis do you treat say L2VPN or L3VPN of naked
> > unencrypted packets often traveling on the very same links as this "bad"
> > Internet traffic to be even slightly more secure then IPSEC or DTLS
> > encrypted SD-WAN carried data with endpoints being terminated in private
> > systems ?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thx,
> > > >>
> > > >> Robert
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Robert, I think that you have to take it as read that an air traffic
> > control SoF system is encrypting its packets. If it is not, then it is
> > clearly not fit for purpose.
> > > >>
> > > >> What concerns me is that an air traffic system is one of the most, if
> > not the most, high profile targets in civil society. You get reminded of
> > this each time you travel to IETF.
> > > >>
> > > >> The thing about safety of flight traffic is that a sustained and
> > effective DDoS attack has global impact in a way that few other such
> > attacks have.
> > > >>
> > > >> A VPN system ought to sustain resistance to such an attack better
> > than the proposed system which treats the SoF traffic the same as regular
> > traffic.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I guess you are making a case for your network slicing work ????
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Acee
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> - Stewart
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtgwg mailing list
> > > rtgwg@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > tte@cs.fau.de
> >

> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg


-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de