draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control-07-AUTH48xml2.original.xml   draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control-07-AUTH48.xml 
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std"
consensus="true" number="8909" docName="draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-contr
ol-07"
ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF"
xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true"
sortRefs="true" version="3">
<!-- [rfced] This file was part way through AUTH48 when the authors added a
norm ref to draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis. This file should be used as the
starting point when AUTH48 is reinitiated. -->
<front>
<title abbrev="DOTS Signal Filter Control">Controlling Filtering Rules
Using Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal
Channel</title>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8909"/>
<author fullname="Kaname Nishizuka" initials="K." surname="Nishizuka">
<organization>NTT Communications</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>GranPark 16F 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku</street>
<code>108-8118</code>
<region>Tokyo</region>
<country>Japan</country>
</postal>
<email>kaname@nttv6.jp</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Mohamed Boucadair" initials="M." surname="Boucadair">
<organization>Orange</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city>Rennes</city>
<code>35000</code>
<region/>
<country>France</country>
</postal>
<email>mohamed.boucadair@orange.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Tirumaleswar Reddy.K" initials="T." surname="Reddy.K">
<organization abbrev="McAfee">McAfee, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Embassy Golf Link Business Park</street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<code>560071</code>
<region>Karnataka</region>
<country>India</country>
</postal>
<email>kondtir@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Takahiko Nagata" initials="T." surname="Nagata">
<organization>Lepidum</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country>Japan</country>
</postal>
<email>nagata@lepidum.co.jp</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="September" year="2020"/>
<workgroup>DOTS</workgroup>
<keyword>Mitigation</keyword>
<keyword>Automation</keyword>
<keyword>Filtering</keyword>
<keyword>Protective Networking</keyword>
<keyword>Protected Networks</keyword>
<keyword>Security</keyword>
<keyword>Anti-DDoS</keyword>
<keyword>Reactive</keyword>
<keyword>Collaborative Networking</keyword>
<keyword>Collaborative Security</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document specifies an extension to the Distributed
Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) signal channel protocol
so that DOTS clients can control their filtering rules when an attack
mitigation is active.</t>
<t>Particularly, this extension allows a DOTS client to activate or
deactivate existing filtering rules during a Distributed
Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack. The
characterization of these filtering rules is conveyed by a DOTS client
during an 'idle' time (i.e., no mitigation is active) by means of the DOTS
data channel protocol.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="introduction" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Introduction</name>
<section anchor="problem" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>The Problem</name>
<t>In the Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
architecture <xref target="RFC8811" format="default"/>, DOTS
clients and servers communicate using both a signal channel protocol
<xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" format="default"/> and a data c
hannel protocol <xref target="RFC8783" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>The DOTS data channel protocol <xref target="RFC8783"
format="default"/> is used for bulk data exchange between DOTS agents
to improve the coordination of parties involved in the response to a
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack. Filter management, which
is one of the tasks of the DOTS data channel protocol, enables a DOTS
client to retrieve the filtering capabilities of a DOTS server and to
manage filtering rules. Typically, these filtering rules are used for
dropping or rate-limiting unwanted traffic, and permitting
accept-listed traffic.</t>
<t>The DOTS signal channel protocol <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-
bis" format="default"/> is
designed to be resilient under extremely hostile network conditions
and provides continued contact between DOTS agents even as DDoS attack
traffic saturates the link. The DOTS signal channel can be established
between two DOTS agents prior to or during an attack. At any time, the
DOTS client may send mitigation requests (as per <xref
target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" sectionFormat="of" section="4.4"/>) to
a DOTS server over the active signal
channel. While mitigation is active, the DOTS server periodically
sends status messages to the DOTS client, including basic mitigation
feedback details. In case of a massive DDoS attack that saturates the
incoming link(s) to the DOTS client, all traffic from the DOTS server
to the DOTS client will likely be dropped. However, the DOTS server
may still receive DOTS messages sent from the DOTS client over the
signaling channel thanks to the heartbeat requests keeping the
channel active (as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis"
sectionFormat="of" section="4.7"/>).</t>
<t>Unlike the DOTS signal channel protocol, the DOTS data channel
protocol is not expected to deal with attack conditions. As such, an
issue that might be encountered in some deployments is when filters
installed by means of the DOTS data channel protocol may not function
as expected during DDoS attacks or, worse, exacerbate an ongoing DDoS
attack. In such conditions, the DOTS data channel protocol cannot be
used to change these filters, which may complicate DDoS mitigation
operations <xref target="INTEROP" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>A typical case is a conflict between filtering rules installed by a
DOTS client and the mitigation actions of a DDoS mitigator. Consider,
for instance, a DOTS client that configures during 'idle' time (i.e.,
no mitigation is active) some filtering rules using the DOTS data
channel protocol to permit traffic from accept-listed sources.
However, during a volumetric DDoS attack, the DDoS mitigator identifies
the source addresses/prefixes in the accept-listed filtering rules are
attacking the target. For example, an attacker can spoof the IP
addresses of accept-listed sources to generate attack traffic, or the
attacker can compromise the accept-listed sources and program them to
launch a DDoS attack.</t>
<t><xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" format="default"/> is design
ed so that the
DDoS server notifies the above conflict to the DOTS client (that is,
the 'conflict-cause' parameter is set to 2 (conflict-with-acceptlist)),
but the DOTS client may not be able to withdraw the accept-list rules
during the attack period due to the high-volume attack traffic
saturating the inbound link to the DOTS client domain. In other
words, the DOTS client cannot use the DOTS data channel protocol to
withdraw the accept-list filters when a DDoS attack is in
progress.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sol" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Controlling Filtering Rules Using DOTS Signal Channel</name>
<t>This specification addresses the problems discussed in <xref target="
problem" format="default"/> by adding a capability for managing filtering
rules using the DOTS signal channel protocol, which enables a DOTS
client to request the activation (or deactivation) of filtering rules
during a DDoS attack. Note that creating these filtering rules is
still the responsibility of the DOTS data channel <xref target="RFC8783"
format="default"/>.</t>
<t>The DOTS signal channel protocol is designed to enable a DOTS
client to contact a DOTS server for help even under severe network
congestion conditions. Therefore, extending the DOTS signal channel
protocol to manage the filtering rules during an attack will enhance
the protection capability offered by DOTS protocols.</t>
<aside>
<t>Note: The experiment at the IETF 103 hackathon <xref
target="INTEROP" format="default"/> showed that even when the
inbound link is saturated by DDoS attack traffic, the DOTS client
can signal mitigation requests using the DOTS signal channel over
the saturated link.</t>
</aside>
<t>Conflicts that are induced by filters installed by other DOTS
clients of the same domain are not discussed in this
specification.</t>
<t>An augmentation to the DOTS signal channel YANG module is defined
in <xref target="YANG" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>Sample examples are provided in <xref target="sample" format="default
"/>, in
particular: </t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>
<xref target="sample1" format="default"/> illustrates how the filter
control extension is used when conflicts with Access Control Lists
(ACLs) are detected and reported by a DOTS server.</li>
<li>
<xref target="sample2" format="default"/> shows how a DOTS client ca
n
instruct a DOTS server to safely forward some specific traffic in
'attack' time.</li>
<li>
<xref target="sample3" format="default"/> shows how a DOTS client ca
n
react if the DDoS traffic is still being forwarded to the DOTS
client domain even if mitigation requests were sent to a DOTS
server.</li>
</ul>
<t>The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) encoding of YANG-modeled data
<xref target="RFC7951" format="default"/> is used to illustrate the exam
ples.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="notation" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Terminology</name>
<t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are
to be interpreted as described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"
format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"/> when, and
only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
<t>The reader should be familiar with the terms defined in <xref
target="RFC8612" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>The terminology for describing YANG modules is defined in <xref
target="RFC7950" format="default"/>. The meaning of the symbols in the
tree diagram is defined in <xref target="RFC8340"/> and <xref target="RFC8
791"
format="default"/>.</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Controlling Filtering Rules of a DOTS Client</name>
<section anchor="bind" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Binding DOTS Data and Signal Channels</name>
<t>The filtering rules eventually managed using the DOTS signal
channel protocol are created a priori by the same DOTS client using
the DOTS data channel protocol. Managing conflicts with filters
installed by other DOTS clients of the same domain is out of
scope.</t>
<t>As discussed in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" sectionForma
t="of"
section="4.4.1"/>, a DOTS client must use the same 'cuid' for both the
DOTS signal and data channels. This requirement is meant to facilitate
binding DOTS channels used by the same DOTS client.</t>
<t>The DOTS signal and data channels from a DOTS client may or may not
use the same DOTS server. Nevertheless, the scope of the mitigation
request, alias, and filtering rules are not restricted to the DOTS
server but to the DOTS server domain. To that aim, DOTS servers within
a domain are assumed to have a mechanism to coordinate the mitigation
requests, aliases, and filtering rules to coordinate their decisions
for better mitigation operation efficiency. The exact details about
such a mechanism is out of the scope of this document.</t>
<t>A filtering rule controlled by the DOTS signal channel is
identified by its ACL name (<xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis"
sectionFormat="of" section="4.3"/>). Note that an ACL name unambiguously
identifies an ACL bound to a DOTS client, but the same name may be
used by distinct DOTS clients.</t>
<t>The activation or deactivation of an ACL by the DOTS signal channel
overrides the 'activation-type' (defined in <xref target="RFC8783"
sectionFormat="of" section="4.3"/>) a priori conveyed with the
filtering rules using the DOTS data channel protocol.</t>
<t>Once the attack is mitigated, the DOTS client may use the data
channel to control the 'activation-type' (e.g., revert to a default
value) of some of the filtering rules controlled by the DOTS signal
channel or delete some of these filters. This behavior is deployment
specific.</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>DOTS Signal Channel Extension</name>
<section anchor="filtering" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Parameters and Behaviors</name>
<t>This specification extends the mitigation request defined in
<xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" sectionFormat="of" section="4
.4.1"/> to
convey the intended control of configured filtering
rules. Concretely, the DOTS client conveys the 'acl-list' attribute wi
th
the following sub-attributes in the Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR) body of a mitigation
request (see the YANG structure in <xref target="tree"
format="default"/>):</t>
<dl newline="false" spacing="normal">
<dt>acl-name:</dt>
<dd>
<t>A name of an access list defined using
the DOTS data channel (<xref target="RFC8783"
sectionFormat="of" section="4.3"/>) that is associated with the DOT
S
client.</t>
<t>As a reminder, an ACL is an ordered list of Access Control
Entries (ACEs). Each ACE has a list of match criteria and a list
of actions <xref target="RFC8783" format="default"/>. The list
of configured ACLs can be retrieved using the DOTS data channel
during 'idle' time.</t>
<t>This is a mandatory attribute when 'acl-list'
is included.</t>
</dd>
<dt>activation-type:</dt>
<dd>
<t>An attribute indicating the activation type of
an ACL overriding the existing 'activation-type' installed by
the DOTS client using the DOTS data channel. </t>
<t>As a reminder, this attribute can be set to
'deactivate', 'immediate', or 'activate-when-mitigating' as
defined in <xref target="RFC8783" format="default"/>. </t>
<t>Note that both 'immediate' and
'activate-when-mitigating' have an immediate effect when a
mitigation request is being processed by the DOTS server.
</t>
<t>This is an optional attribute.</t>
</dd>
</dl>
<t>By default, ACL-related operations are achieved using the DOTS
data channel protocol when no attack is ongoing. DOTS clients <bcp14>M
UST
NOT</bcp14> use the filtering control over the DOTS signal channel in
'idle'
time; such requests <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be discarded by DOTS servers w
ith 4.00 (Bad
Request).</t>
<t>During an attack time, DOTS clients may include 'acl-list',
'acl-name', and 'activation-type' attributes in a mitigation
request. This request may be the initial mitigation request for a
given mitigation scope or a new one overriding an existing request.
In both cases, a new 'mid' <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be used. Nevertheless,
it is <bcp14>NOT
RECOMMENDED</bcp14> to include ACL attributes in an initial mitigation
request for a given mitigation scope or in a mitigation request
adjusting the mitigation scope. This recommendation is meant to
avoid delaying attack mitigations because of failures to process ACL
attributes.</t>
<t>As the attack evolves, DOTS clients can adjust the
'activation-type' of an ACL conveyed in a mitigation request or
control other filters as necessary. This can be achieved by sending
a PUT request with a new 'mid' value.</t>
<t>It is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> for a DOTS client to subscribe
to asynchronous notifications of the attack mitigation, as detailed
in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" sectionFormat="of" section
="4.4.2.1"/>. If
not, the polling mechanism in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis"
sectionFormat="of" section="4.4.2.2"/> has to be followed by the
DOTS client.</t>
<t>A DOTS client relies on the information received from the DOTS
server and/or local information to the DOTS client domain to trigger
a filter control request. Only filters that are pertinent for an
ongoing mitigation should be controlled by a DOTS client using the
DOTS signal channel.</t>
<t>'acl-list', 'acl-name', and 'activation-type' are defined as
comprehension-required parameters. Following the rules in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" sectionFormat="of" section="6"/>, i
f the DOTS
server does not understand the 'acl-list', 'acl-name', or
'activation-type' attributes, it responds with a 4.00 (Bad
Request) error response code.</t>
<t>If the DOTS server does not find the ACL name ('acl-name')
conveyed in the mitigation request for this DOTS client, it <bcp14>MUS
T</bcp14>
respond with a 4.04 (Not Found) error response code.</t>
<t>If the DOTS server finds the ACL name for this DOTS client, and
assuming the request passed the validation checks in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" sectionFormat="of" section="4.4.1"/
>, the DOTS
server <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> proceed with the 'activation-type'
update. The update is immediately enforced by the DOTS server and
will be maintained as the new activation type for the ACL name even
after the termination of the mitigation request. In addition, the
DOTS server <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> update the lifetime of the
corresponding ACL similar to the update when a refresh request is
received using the DOTS data channel (<xref target="RFC8783"
sectionFormat="of" section="7.2"/>). If, for some reason, the DOTS
server fails to apply the filter update, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
respond with a 5.03 (Service Unavailable) error response code and
include the failed ACL update in the diagnostic payload of the
response (an example is shown in <xref target="diag"
format="default"/>). Else, the DOTS server replies with the
appropriate response code defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc87
82-bis"
sectionFormat="of" section="4.4.1"/>.</t>
<figure anchor="diag">
<name>Example of a Diagnostic Payload Including Failed ACL Update</n
ame>
<sourcecode>
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
"scope": [
{
"mid": 123,
"ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
{
"acl-name": "an-accept-list",
"activation-type": "deactivate"
}
]
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>The JSON/YANG mappings for DOTS filter control attributes are
shown in <xref target="table1"/>. As a reminder, the mapping for 'acl-
name' is
defined in Table 5 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis"/>.</t>
<table anchor="table1">
<name>JSON/YANG Mapping to CBOR for Filter Control Attributes</name>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Parameter Name</th>
<th>YANG Type</th>
<th>CBOR Type</th>
<th>CBOR Major Type &amp; Information</th>
<th>JSON Type</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>activation-type</td>
<td>enumeration</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>0 unsigned</td>
<td>String</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list</td>
<td>list</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>4 array</td>
<td>Array</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>acl-name</td>
<td>leafref</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>3 text string</td>
<td>String</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<t>If the DOTS client receives a 5.03 (Service Unavailable) with a
diagnostic payload indicating a failed ACL update as a response to
an initial mitigation or a mitigation with adjusted scope, the DOTS
client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> immediately send a new request that
repeats all the parameters as sent in the failed mitigation request
but without including the ACL attributes. After the expiry of
Max-Age returned in the 5.03 (Service Unavailable) response, the
DOTS client retries with a new mitigation request (i.e., a new
'mid') that repeats all the parameters as sent in the failed
mitigation request (i.e., the one including the ACL attributes).</t>
<t>If, during an active mitigation, the 'activation-type' is changed
at the DOTS server (e.g., as a result of an external action) for an
ACL bound to a DOTS client, the DOTS server notifies that DOTS
client of the change by including the corresponding ACL parameters
in an asynchronous notification (the DOTS client is observing the
active mitigation) or in a response to a polling request (<xref
target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" sectionFormat="of" section="4.4.2.2
"/>).</t>
<t>If the DOTS signal and data channels of a DOTS client are not
established with the same DOTS server of a DOTS server domain, the
above request processing operations are undertaken using the
coordination mechanism discussed in <xref target="bind" format="defaul
t"/>.</t>
<t>This specification does not require any modification to the
efficacy update and the withdrawal procedures defined in <xref target=
"I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" format="default"/>. In particular, ACL-related claus
es are not
included in a PUT request used to send an efficacy update and DELETE
requests.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="YANG" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>DOTS Signal Filtering Control Module</name>
<section anchor="tree" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Tree Structure</name>
<t>This document augments the "ietf-dots-signal-channel" YANG
module defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" format="d
efault"/> for managing
filtering rules.</t>
<t>This document defines the YANG module
"ietf-dots-signal-control", which has the following tree
structure:</t>
<sourcecode type="yangtree">
module: ietf-dots-signal-control
augment-structure /dots-signal:dots-signal/dots-signal:message-type
/dots-signal:mitigation-scope/dots-signal:scope:
+-- acl-list* [acl-name]
+-- acl-name
| -> /data-channel:dots-data/dots-client/acls/acl/name
+-- activation-type? data-channel:activation-type
</sourcecode >
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>YANG Module</name>
<t>This YANG module is not intended to be used via
NETCONF/RESTCONF for DOTS server management purposes; such a module
is out of the scope of this document. It serves only to provide a
data model and encoding, but not a management data model.</t>
<t>This module uses types defined in <xref target="RFC8783" format="
default"/>.</t>
<!-- rfc XXXX below to be replaced per author with whatever RFC #
assigned to I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-->
<sourcecode name="ietf-dots-signal-control@2020-09-10.yang" type="yang" markers
="true"><![CDATA[
module ietf-dots-signal-control {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-signal-control";
prefix dots-control;
import ietf-dots-signal-channel {
prefix dots-signal;
reference
"RFC XXXX: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification";
}
import ietf-yang-structure-ext {
prefix sx;
reference
"RFC 8791: YANG Data Structure Extensions";
}
import ietf-dots-data-channel {
prefix data-channel;
reference
"RFC 8783: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel Specification";
}
organization
"IETF DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dots/>
WG List: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
Author: Kaname Nishizuka
<mailto:kaname@nttv6.jp>
Author: Mohamed Boucadair
<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Author: Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
<mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>
Author: Takahiko Nagata
<mailto:nagata@lepidum.co.jp>";
description
"This module contains YANG definition for the signaling
messages exchanged between a DOTS client and a DOTS server
to control, by means of the DOTS signal channel, filtering
rules configured using the DOTS data channel.
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8909; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2020-09-10 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 8909: Controlling Filtering Rules Using Distributed
Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
Signal Channel";
}
sx:augment-structure "/dots-signal:dots-signal"
+ "/dots-signal:message-type"
+ "/dots-signal:mitigation-scope"
+ "/dots-signal:scope" {
description
"ACL name and activation type.";
list acl-list {
key "acl-name";
description
"List of ACLs as defined using the DOTS data
channel. ACLs bound to a DOTS client are uniquely
identified by a name.";
leaf acl-name {
type leafref {
path "/data-channel:dots-data/data-channel:dots-client"
+ "/data-channel:acls/data-channel:acl/data-channel:name";
}
description
"Reference to the ACL name bound to a DOTS client.";
}
leaf activation-type {
type data-channel:activation-type;
default "activate-when-mitigating";
description
"Sets the activation type of an ACL.";
}
}
}
}
]]></sourcecode>
</section>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="sample" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Some Examples</name>
<t>This section provides some examples to illustrate the behavior
specified in <xref target="filtering" format="default"/>. These examples a
re
provided for illustration purposes; they should not be considered as
deployment recommendations.</t>
<section anchor="sample1" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Conflict Handling</name>
<t>Let's consider a DOTS client that contacts its DOTS server during
'idle' time to install an accept-list allowing for UDP traffic issued
from 2001:db8:1234::/48 with a destination port number 443 to be
forwarded to 2001:db8:6401::2/127. It does so by sending, for example,
a PUT request as shown in <xref target="PUT" format="default"/>.</t>
<figure anchor="PUT">
<name>DOTS Data Channel Request to Create a Filter</name>
<sourcecode>
PUT /restconf/data/ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-data\
/dots-client=paL8p4Zqo4SLv64TLPXrxA/acls\
/acl=an-accept-list HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{
"ietf-dots-data-channel:acls": {
"acl": [
{
"name": "an-accept-list",
"type": "ipv6-acl-type",
"activation-type": "activate-when-mitigating",
"aces": {
"ace": [
{
"name": "test-ace-ipv6-udp",
"matches": {
"ipv6": {
"destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:6401::2/127",
"source-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:1234::/48"
},
"udp": {
"destination-port-range-or-operator": {
"operator": "eq",
"port": 443
}
}
},
"actions": {
"forwarding": "accept"
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>Sometime later, consider that a DDoS attack is detected by the DOTS
client on 2001:db8:6401::2/127. Consequently, the DOTS client sends a
mitigation request to its DOTS server as shown in <xref target="mitigate
" format="default"/>.</t>
<figure anchor="mitigate">
<name>DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request</name>
<sourcecode>
Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
Uri-Path: ".well-known"
Uri-Path: "dots"
Uri-Path: "mitigate"
Uri-Path: "cuid=paL8p4Zqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
Uri-Path: "mid=123"
Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
"scope": [
{
"target-prefix": [
"2001:db8:6401::2/127"
],
"target-protocol": [
17
],
"lifetime": 3600
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>The DOTS server immediately accepts the request by replying with
2.01 (Created) (<xref target="response" format="default"/> depicts the m
essage
body of the response).</t>
<figure anchor="response">
<name>Status Response (Message Body)</name>
<sourcecode>
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
"scope": [
{
"mid": 123,
"lifetime": 3600
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>Assuming the DOTS client subscribed to asynchronous notifications,
when the DOTS server concludes that some of the attack sources belong
to 2001:db8:1234::/48, it sends a notification message with 'status'
code set to 1 (attack-mitigation-in-progress) and 'conflict-cause' set
to 2 (conflict-with-acceptlist) to the DOTS client to indicate that
this mitigation request is in progress, but a conflict is
detected.</t>
<t>Upon receipt of the notification message from the DOTS server, the
DOTS client sends a PUT request to deactivate the "an-accept-list" ACL
as shown in <xref target="control" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>The DOTS client can also decide to send a PUT request to deactivate
the "an-accept-list" ACL if suspect traffic is received from an
accept-listed source (2001:db8:1234::/48). The structure of that PUT
is the same as the one shown in <xref target="control" format="default"/
>.</t>
<figure anchor="control">
<name>PUT for Deactivating a Conflicting Filter</name>
<sourcecode>
Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
Uri-Path: ".well-known"
Uri-Path: "dots"
Uri-Path: "mitigate"
Uri-Path: "cuid=paL8p4Zqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
Uri-Path: "mid=124"
Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
"scope": [
{
"target-prefix": [
"2001:db8:6401::2/127"
],
"target-protocol": [
17
],
"ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
{
"acl-name": "an-accept-list",
"activation-type": "deactivate"
}
],
"lifetime": 3600
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>Then, the DOTS server deactivates the "an-accept-list" ACL and replie
s
with a 2.04 (Changed) response to the DOTS client to confirm the
successful operation. The message body is similar to the one depicted
in <xref target="response" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>Once the attack is mitigated, the DOTS client may use the data
channel to retrieve its ACLs maintained by the DOTS server. As shown
in <xref target="GET-2" format="default"/>, the activation type is set t
o
'deactivate' as set by the DOTS signal channel (<xref target="control" f
ormat="default"/>) instead of the type initially set using the
DOTS data channel (<xref target="PUT" format="default"/>).</t>
<figure anchor="GET-2">
<name>DOTS Data Channel GET Response after Mitigation (Message Body)</
name>
<sourcecode>
{
"ietf-dots-data-channel:acls": {
"acl": [
{
"name": "an-accept-list",
"type": "ipv6-acl-type",
"activation-type": "deactivate",
"pending-lifetime": 10021,
"aces": {
"ace": [
{
"name": "test-ace-ipv6-udp",
"matches": {
"ipv6": {
"destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:6401::2/127",
"source-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:1234::/48"
},
"udp": {
"destination-port-range-or-operator": {
"operator": "eq",
"port": 443
}
}
},
"actions": {
"forwarding": "accept"
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
</section>
<section anchor="sample2" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>On-Demand Activation of an Accept-List Filter</name>
<t>Let's consider a DOTS client that contacts its DOTS server during
'idle' time to install an accept-list allowing for UDP traffic issued
from 2001:db8:1234::/48 to be forwarded to 2001:db8:6401::2/127. It
does so by sending, for example, a PUT request shown in <xref
target="PUT1" format="default"/>. The DOTS server installs this filter
with a "deactivated" state.</t>
<figure anchor="PUT1">
<name>DOTS Data Channel Request to Create an Accept-List Filter</name>
<sourcecode>
PUT /restconf/data/ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-data\
/dots-client=ioiuLoZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA/acls\
/acl=my-accept-list HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{
"ietf-dots-data-channel:acls": {
"acl": [
{
"name": "my-accept-list",
"type": "ipv6-acl-type",
"activation-type": "deactivate",
"aces": {
"ace": [
{
"name": "an-ace",
"matches": {
"ipv6": {
"destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:6401::2/127",
"source-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:1234::/48",
"protocol": 17
}
},
"actions": {
"forwarding": "accept"
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>Sometime later, consider that a UDP DDoS attack is detected by the
DOTS client on 2001:db8:6401::2/127 but the DOTS client wants to let
the traffic from 2001:db8:1234::/48 be accept-listed to the DOTS
client domain. Consequently, the DOTS client sends a mitigation
request to its DOTS server as shown in <xref target="mitigate1" format="
default"/>.</t>
<figure anchor="mitigate1">
<name>DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request with a Filter Control</na
me>
<sourcecode>
Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
Uri-Path: ".well-known"
Uri-Path: "dots"
Uri-Path: "mitigate"
Uri-Path: "cuid=ioiuLoZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
Uri-Path: "mid=4879"
Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
"scope": [
{
"target-prefix": [
"2001:db8:6401::2/127"
],
"target-protocol": [
17
],
"ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
{
"acl-name": "my-accept-list",
"activation-type": "immediate"
}
],
"lifetime": 3600
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>The DOTS server activates the "my-accept-list" ACL and replies with
a 2.01 (Created) response to the DOTS client to confirm the successful
operation.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sample3" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>DOTS Servers/Mitigators Lacking Capacity</name>
<t>This section describes a scenario in which a DOTS client activates
a drop-list or a rate-limit filter during an attack.</t>
<t>Consider a DOTS client that contacts its DOTS server during 'idle'
time to install an accept-list that rate-limits all (or a part
thereof) traffic to be forwarded to 2001:db8:123::/48 as a last resort
countermeasure whenever required. Installing the accept-list can be
done by sending, for example, the PUT request shown in <xref
target="rate" format="default"/>. The DOTS server installs this filter
with a "deactivated" state.</t>
<figure anchor="rate">
<name>DOTS Data Channel Request to Create a Rate-Limit Filter</name>
<sourcecode>
PUT /restconf/data/ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-data\
/dots-client=OopPisZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA/acls\
/acl=my-ratelimit-list HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{
"ietf-dots-data-channel:acls": {
"acl": [
{
"name": "my-ratelimit-list",
"type": "ipv6-acl-type",
"activation-type": "deactivate",
"aces": {
"ace": [
{
"name": "my-ace",
"matches": {
"ipv6": {
"destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:123::/48"
}
},
"actions": {
"forwarding": "accept",
"rate-limit": "20000.00"
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>Consider now that a DDoS attack is detected by the DOTS client on
2001:db8:123::/48. Consequently, the DOTS client sends a mitigation
request to its DOTS server (<xref target="ratel" format="default"/>).</t
>
<figure anchor="ratel">
<name>DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request</name>
<sourcecode>
Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
Uri-Path: ".well-known"
Uri-Path: "dots"
Uri-Path: "mitigate"
Uri-Path: "cuid=OopPisZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
Uri-Path: "mid=85"
Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
"scope": [
{
"target-prefix": [
"2001:db8:123::/48"
],
"lifetime": 3600
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>For some reason (e.g., the DOTS server, or the mitigator, is
lacking a capability or capacity), the DOTS client is still receiving
attack traffic, which saturates available links. To soften the
problem, the DOTS client decides to activate the filter that
rate-limits the traffic destined to the DOTS client domain. To that
aim, the DOTS client sends the mitigation request to its DOTS server
shown in <xref target="rateres" format="default"/>.</t>
<figure anchor="rateres">
<name>DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request to Activate a Rate-Limit
Filter</name>
<sourcecode>
Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
Uri-Path: ".well-known"
Uri-Path: "dots"
Uri-Path: "mitigate"
Uri-Path: "cuid=OopPisZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
Uri-Path: "mid=86"
Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
"scope": [
{
"target-prefix": [
"2001:db8:123::/48"
],
"ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
{
"acl-name": "my-ratelimit-list",
"activation-type": "immediate"
}
],
"lifetime": 3600
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
<t>Then, the DOTS server activates the "my-ratelimit-list" ACL and repli
es
with a 2.04 (Changed) response to the DOTS client to confirm the
successful operation.</t>
<t>As the attack mitigation evolves, the DOTS client may decide to
deactivate the rate-limit policy (e.g., upon receipt of a notification
status change from 'attack-exceeded-capability' to
'attack-mitigation-in-progress'). Based on the mitigation status
conveyed by the DOTS server, the DOTS client can deactivate the
rate-limit action. It does so by sending the request shown in <xref targ
et="rateres2" format="default"/>.</t>
<figure anchor="rateres2">
<name>DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request to Deactivate a Rate-Limi
t Filter</name>
<sourcecode type="cbor">
Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
Uri-Path: ".well-known"
Uri-Path: "dots"
Uri-Path: "mitigate"
Uri-Path: "cuid=OopPisZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
Uri-Path: "mid=87"
Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
"scope": [
{
"target-prefix": [
"2001:db8:123::/48"
],
"ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
{
"acl-name": "my-ratelimit-list",
"activation-type": "deactivate"
}
],
"lifetime": 3600
}
]
}
}
</sourcecode>
</figure>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>IANA Considerations</name>
<section anchor="map" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values Subregistry</name>
<t>Per this specification, IANA has registered the following parameters
in the
"DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" subregistry within the
"Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal
Channel" registry <xref target="Key-Map" format="default"/>.</t>
<table anchor="table2">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Parameter Name</th>
<th>CBOR Key Value</th>
<th>CBOR Major Type</th>
<th>Change Controller</th>
<th>Specification Document(s)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>activation-type</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>IESG</td>
<td>RFC 8909</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>IESG</td>
<td>RFC 8909</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</section>
<section anchor="yang-iana" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>A New YANG Module</name>
<t>IANA has registered the following URI in the
"ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" <xref target="RFC3688" f
ormat="default"/>:</t>
<dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
<dt>URI:</dt><dd>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-signal-control</dd>
<dt>Registrant Contact:</dt><dd>The IESG.</dd>
<dt>XML:</dt><dd>N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.</dd>
</dl>
<t>IANA has registered the following YANG module
in the "YANG Module Names" subregistry <xref target="RFC6020" format="de
fault"/>
within the "YANG Parameters" registry.</t>
<dl newline="false" spacing="compact">
<dt>Name:</dt><dd>ietf-dots-signal-control</dd>
<dt>Namespace:</dt><dd>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-signal-control</dd>
<dt>Maintained by IANA:</dt><dd>N</dd>
<dt>Prefix:</dt><dd>dots-control</dd>
<dt>Reference:</dt><dd>RFC 8909</dd>
</dl>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="security" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>The security considerations for the DOTS signal channel protocol are
discussed in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" sectionFormat="of" s
ection="11"/>,
while those for the DOTS data channel protocol are discussed in <xref
target="RFC8783" sectionFormat="of" section="10"/>. The following
discusses the security considerations that are specific to the DOTS
signal channel extension defined in this document.</t>
<t>This specification does not allow the creation of new filtering rules,
which is the responsibility of the DOTS data channel. DOTS client
domains should be adequately prepared prior to an attack, e.g., by
creating filters that will be activated on demand when an attack is
detected.</t>
<t>A DOTS client is entitled to access only the resources it creates. In
particular, a DOTS client can not tweak filtering rules created by other
DOTS clients of the same DOTS client domain. As a reminder, DOTS servers
must associate filtering rules with the DOTS client that created these
resources. Failure to ensure such association by a DOTS server will have
severe impact on DOTS client domains.</t>
<t>A compromised DOTS client can use the filtering control capability to
exacerbate an ongoing attack. Likewise, such a compromised DOTS client
may abstain from reacting to an ACL conflict notification received from
the DOTS server during attacks. These are not new attack vectors, but
variations of threats discussed in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis
"
format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC8783" format="default"/>. DOTS
operators should carefully monitor and audit DOTS agents to detect
misbehaviors and deter misuses.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<!-- I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis temporarily set to RFCXXXX waiting on that doc
to continue.
-->
<displayreference target="I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis" to="RFCXXXX"/>
<references>
<name>References</name>
<references>
<name>Normative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.2119.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7950.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.3688.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.6020.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8174.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8791.xml"/>
<!-- <xi:include
href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8782.xml
"/>-->
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-
D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8783.xml"/>
</references>
<references>
<name>Informative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8612.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7951.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8340.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8811.xml"/>
<reference anchor="INTEROP" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting
/103/materials/slides-103-dots-interop-report-from-ietf-103-hackathon-00">
<front>
<title>DOTS Interop test report, IETF 103 Hackathon</title>
<author fullname="Kaname Nishizuka" initials="K." surname="Nishizuka
">
<organization>NTT Communications</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>GranPark 16F 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku</street>
<city>Tokyo</city>
<region/>
<code>108-8118</code>
<country>Japan</country>
</postal>
<email>kaname@nttv6.jp</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Jon Shallow" initials="J." surname=" Shallow">
<organization>J.NCC Group</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country/>
</postal>
<phone/>
<email/>
<uri/>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Liang Xia" initials="L." surname="Xia ">
<organization>Huawei</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country/>
</postal>
<phone/>
<email/>
<uri/>
</address>
</author>
<date month="November" year="2018"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Key-Map" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/dot
s">
<front>
<title>Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
Signal Channel</title>
<author fullname="IANA">
<organization/>
</author>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</references>
<section anchor="ack" numbered="false" toc="default">
<name>Acknowledgements</name>
<t>Many thanks to <contact fullname="Wei Pan"/>, <contact fullname="Xia
Liang"/>, <contact fullname="Jon Shallow"/>, <contact fullname="Dan
Wing"/>, <contact fullname="Christer
Holmberg"/>, <contact fullname="Shawn Emery"/>, <contact fullname="Tim
Chown"/>, <contact fullname="Murray Kucherawy"/>, <contact
fullname="Roman Danyliw"/>, <contact fullname="Erik
Kline"/>, and <contact fullname="√Čric Vyncke"/> for the comments.</t>
<t>Thanks to <contact fullname="Benjamin Kaduk"/> for the AD review.</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
 End of changes. 1 change blocks. 
lines changed or deleted lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/