An Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)
Huawei USA - Futurewei Technologies Inc.2330 Central ExpySanta Clara95050USAtte+ietf@cs.fau.demichael.h.behringer@gmail.comArbor Networks2727 South State Street, Suite 200Ann ArborMI 48104United Statessbjarnason@arbor.net
Operations and Management
ANIMA WG
Autonomic functions need a control plane to communicate, which depends on some addressing and routing. This Autonomic Management and Control Plane should ideally be self-managing, and as independent as possible of configuration. This document defines such a plane and calls it the "Autonomic Control Plane", with the primary use as a control plane for autonomic functions. It also serves as a "virtual out-of-band channel" for Operations Administration and Management (OAM) communications over a network that is secure and reliable even when the network is not configured, or misconfigured.
Autonomic Networking is a concept of self-management: Autonomic functions self-configure, and negotiate parameters and settings across the network. defines the fundamental ideas and design goals of Autonomic Networking. A gap analysis of Autonomic Networking is given in . The reference architecture for Autonomic Networking in the IETF is specified in the document .Autonomic functions need an autonomically built communications infrastructure. This infrastructure needs to be secure, resilient and re-usable by all autonomic functions. Section 5 of introduces that infrastructure and calls it the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP). More descriptively it would be the "Autonomic communications infrastructure for Management and Control". For naming consistency with that prior document, this document continues to use the name ACP though.Today, the management and control plane of networks typically uses a routing and forwarding table which is dependent on correct configuration and routing. Misconfigurations or routing problems can therefore disrupt management and control channels. Traditionally, an out-of-band network has been used to avoid or allow recovery from such problems, or personnel are sent on site to access devices through out-of-band management ports (also called craft ports, serial console, management ethernet port). However, both options are expensive.
In increasingly automated networks either centralized management systems or distributed autonomic service agents in the network require a control plane which is independent of the configuration of the network they manage, to avoid impacting their own operations through the configuration actions they take.
This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self-managing and self-protecting Autonomic Control Plane (ACP), which is a virtual in-band network designed to be as independent as possible of configuration, addressing and routing problems. The details how this are achieved as described in . The ACP is designed to remain operational even in the presence of configuration errors, addressing or routing issues, or where policy could inadvertently affect connectivity of both data packets or control packets.This document uses the term "Data-Plane" to refer to anything in the network nodes that is not the ACP, and therefore considered to be dependent on (mis-)configuration. This Data-Plane includes both the traditional forwarding-plane, as well as any pre-existing control-plane, such as routing protocols that establish routing tables for the forwarding plane.The Autonomic Control Plane serves several purposes at the same time:
Autonomic functions communicate over the ACP. The ACP therefore directly supports Autonomic Networking functions, as described in . For example, Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP - ) runs securely inside the ACP and depends on the ACP as its "security and transport substrate".A controller or network management system can use it to securely bootstrap network devices in remote locations, even if the (Data-Plane) network in between is not yet configured; no Data-Plane dependent bootstrap configuration is required. An example of such a secure bootstrap process is described in .An operator can use it to log into remote devices, even if the network is misconfigured or not configured.This document describes these purposes as use cases for the ACP in , it defines the requirements in . gives an overview how the ACP is constructed.The normative part of this document starts with , where the the ACP is specified. defines normative how to support ACP on L2 switches. explains normative how non-ACP nodes and networks can be integrated.The remaining sections are non-normative: reviews benefits of the ACP (after all the details have been defined), provides operational recommendations, provides additional explanations and describes additional details or future standard or propriety extensions that were considered not to be appropriate for standardization in this document but were considered important to document. There are no dependencies against to build a complete working and interoperable
ACP according to this document.The ACP provides secure IPv6 connectivity, therefore it can not only be used as the secure connectivity for self-management as required for the ACP in , but it can also be used as the secure connectivity for traditional (centralized) management. The ACP can be implemented and operated without any other components of autonomic networks, except for the GRASP protocol which it leverages.The document "Using Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM" describes how the ACP alone can be used to provide secure and stable connectivity for autonomic and non-autonomic Operations Administration and Management (OAM) applications. That document also explains how existing management solutions can leverage the ACP in parallel with traditional management models, when to use the ACP and how to integrate with potentially IPv4 only OAM backends.Combining ACP with Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI), see ) results in the "Autonomic Network Infrastructure" as defined in , which provides autonomic connectivity (from ACP) with fully secure zero-touch (automated) bootstrap from BRSKI. The ANI itself does not constitute an Autonomic Network, but it allows the building of more or less autonomic networks on top of it - using either centralized, Software Defined Networking- (SDN-)style (see ) automation or distributed automation via Autonomic Service Agents (ASA) / Autonomic Functions (AF) - or a mixture of both. See for more information.Please see the following Terminology section () for explanations of terms used in this section.The design of the ACP as defined in this document is considered to be applicable to all types of "professionally managed" networks: Service Provider, Local Area Network (LAN), Metro(politan networks), Wide Area Network (WAN), Enterprise Information Technology (IT) and ->"Operational Technology" (OT) networks. The ACP can operate equally on layer 3 equipment and on layer 2 equipment such a bridges (see ). The encryption mechanism used by the ACP is defined to be negotiable, therefore it can be extended to environments with different encryption protocol preferences. The minimum implementation requirements in this document attempt to achieve maximum interoperability by requiring support for few options: IP security (IPsec), see ) and datagram Transport Layer Security version 1.2 (DTLS), see ), depending on type of device.The implementation footprint of the ACP consists of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) code for the ACP certificate, the GRASP protocol, UDP, TCP and TLS (for security and reliability of GRASP), the ACP secure channel protocol used (such as IPsec or DTLS), and an instance of IPv6 packet forwarding and routing via the Routing Protocol for Low-power and Lossy Networks (RPL), see , that is separate from routing and forwarding for the Data-Plane (user traffic).The ACP uses only IPv6 to avoid complexity of dual-stack ACP operations (IPv6/IPv4). Nevertheless, it can without any changes be integrated into even otherwise IPv4-only network devices. The Data-Plane itself would not need to change, it could continue to be IPv4 only. For such IPv4 only devices, the IPv6 protocol itself would be additional implementation footprint only used for the ACP.The protocol choices of the ACP are primarily based on wide use and support in networks and devices, well understood security properties and required scalability. The ACP design is an attempt to produce the lowest risk combination of existing technologies and protocols to build a widely applicable operational network management solution:RPL was chosen because it requires a smaller routing table footprint in large networks compared to other routing protocols with an autonomically configured single area. The deployment experience of large scale Internet of Things (IoT) networks serves as the basis for wide deployment experience with RPL. The profile chosen for RPL in the ACP does not not leverage any RPL specific forwarding plane features (IPv6 extension headers), making its implementation a pure control plane software requirement.GRASP is the only completely novel protocol used in the ACP, and this choice was necessary because there is no existing suitable protocol to provide the necessary functions to the ACP, so GRASP was developed to fill that gap. The ACP design can be applicable to (cpu, memory) constrained devices and (bitrate, reliability) constrained networks, but this document does not attempt to define the most constrained type of devices or networks to which the ACP is applicable. RPL and DTLS are two protocol choices already making ACP more applicable to constrained environments. See for discussions about how future standards or proprietary extensions/variations variations of the ACP could better meet different expectations from those on which the current design is based.[RFC Editor: WG/IETF/IESG review of the terms below asked for references
betwen these terms when they refer to each other. The only option in RFC/XML
i found to point to a hanging text acronym definition that also displays
the actual term is the format="title" version, which leads to references
such as '->"ACP domain certificate" ()'. I found no reasonable way to eliminate
the trailing '()' generated by this type of cross references. Can you
please take care of removing these artefacts during editing (after conversion
to nroff ?). Also created ticket to ask for xml2rfc enhancement to avoid this
in the future: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/347.[RFC Editor: Question: Is it possible to change the first occurences of
[RFCxxxx] references to "rfcxxx title" [RFCxxxx]? the XML2RFC format does
not seem to offer such a format, but i did not want to duplicate 50 first
references to be duplicate - one reference for title mentioning and one
for RFC number.]In the rest of the document we will refer to systems using the ACP as "nodes". Typically such a node is a physical (network equipment) device, but it can equally be some virtualized system. Therefore, we do not refer to them as devices unless the context specifically calls for a physical system.This document introduces or uses the following terms (sorted alphabetically). Terms introduced are
explained on first use, so this list is for reference only."Autonomic Control Plane". The Autonomic Function as defined in this document.
It provides secure zero-touch (automated) transitive (network wide) IPv6 connectivity for all nodes in the same ACP domain as well as a GRASP instance running across this ACP IPv6 connectivity.
The ACP is primarily meant to be used as a component of the ANI to enable Autonomic Networks
but it can equally be used in simple ANI networks (with no other Autonomic Functions) or
completely by itself.
An IPv6 address assigned to the ACP node. It is stored
in the domain information field of the ->"ACP domain certificate".
The ACP address may imply a range or set of addresses that the node can assign for different purposes. This address range/set is derived by the node from the format of the ACP address called the "addressing sub-scheme".
An interface on an ACP node providing access to the ACP for non ACP capable nodes without using an ACP secure channel. See .
The ACP domain is the set of nodes with ->"ACP domain certificates" that allow them to authenticate each other as members of the ACP domain. See also .A provisioned certificate (LDevID)
carrying the domain information field which is used by the ACP to learn its address
in the ACP and to derive and cryptographically assert its membership in the ACP domain.
An rfc822Name information element (e.g., field) in
the domain certificate in which the ACP relevant information is encoded: the domain
name and the ACP address.
The Loopback interface in the ACP Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) that has the ACP address assigned to it.
The ACP network constitutes all the nodes that have access to the ACP.
It is the set of active and transitively connected nodes of an ACP domain plus all nodes that get access to
the ACP of that domain via ACP edge nodes.
The /48 IPv6 address prefixes used across the ACP. In the normal/simple case, the ACP has one ULA prefix, see . The ACP routing table may include multiple ULA prefixes if the "rsub" option is used to create addresses from more than one ULA prefix. See . The ACP may also include non-ULA prefixes if those are configured on ACP connect interfaces. See .
A cryptographically authenticated and encrypted data connection
established between (normally) adjacent ACP nodes to carry traffic of the ACP VRF secure and
isolated from Data-Plane traffic in-band over the same link/path as the Data-Plane.
The protocol used to build an ACP secure channel,
e.g., Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (IKEv2) with IPsec or Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS).
An interface in the ACP VRF mapped to one or more
ACP secure channels. See .
"Autonomic Network": A network according to .
Its main components are ANI, Autonomic Functions and Intent.
An FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) in the domain information field of the Domain Certificate. See .
"Autonomic Network Infrastructure".
The ANI is the infrastructure to enable Autonomic Networks. It includes ACP, BRSKI and GRASP.
Every Autonomic Network includes the ANI, but not every ANI network needs to include autonomic functions beyond the ANI (nor Intent). An ANI network without further autonomic functions can for example support secure zero-touch (automated) bootstrap
and stable connectivity for SDN networks - see .
"Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach".
ACP, BRSKI and GRASP are products of the IETF ANIMA working group.
"Autonomic Service Agent". Autonomic software modules running on
an ANI device. The components making up the ANI (BRSKI, ACP, GRASP) are also described as ASAs.
A function/service in an Autonomic Network (AN)
composed of one or more ASA across one or more ANI nodes.
"Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures"
(. A protocol extending EST to
enable secure zero-touch bootstrap in conjunction with ACP. ANI nodes use ACP, BRSKI and GRASP.
The counterpoint to the ACP VRF in an ACP node: all routing and
forwarding in the node other than the ACP VRF. In a simple ACP or ANI node, the Data-Plane is
typically provisioned by means other than autonomically, for example manually (including across the ACP) or via SDN
controllers. In a fully Autonomic Network node, the Data-Plane is managed autonomically via Autonomic
Functions and Intent. Note that other (non-ANIMA) RFC use the Data-Plane to refer to what is better called the forwarding plane. This is not the way the term is used in this document!
A physical system, or physical node.The process where a node presents identification (for example
through keying material such as the private key of an IDevID) to a network and acquires
a network specific identity and trust anchor such as an LDevID.
"Enrollment over Secure Transport" (). IETF
standard protocol for enrollment of a node with an LDevID. BRSKI is based on EST.
"Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol". An extensible signaling
protocol required by the ACP for ACP neighbor discovery. The ACP also provides the
"security and transport substrate" for the "ACP instance of GRASP". This instance
of GRASP runs across the ACP secure channels to support BRSKI and other NOC/OAM or
Autonomic Functions. See .
An "Initial Device IDentity" X.509 certificate installed by
the vendor on new equipment. Contains information that establishes the identity of the
node in the context of its vendor/manufacturer such as device model/type
and serial number. See . IDevID can not be used for the
ACP because they are not provisioned by the owner of the network, so they can
not directly indicate an ACP domain they belong to.
The type of management used predominantly in IP based networks, not leveraging
an ->"out-of-band network".
In in-band management, access to the managed equipment depends on the configuration
of this equipment itself: interface, addressing, forwarding, routing, policy,
security, management. This dependency makes in-band management fragile because the
configuration actions performed may break in-band management connectivity. Breakage can
not only be unintentional, it can simply be an unavoidable side effect of being unable
to create configuration schemes where in-band management connectivity configuration is
unaffected by Data-Plane configuration. See also
->"(virtual) out-of-band network".
Policy language of an autonomic network according to .
The conventional name for an internal IP interface to which addresses may be assigned, but which transmits no external traffic.
A "Local Device IDentity" is an X.509 certificate installed during
"enrollment". The Domain Certificate used by the ACP is an LDevID. See .
"Manufacturer Installed Certificate". Another word not used in this document
to describe an IDevID.
Interfaces existing on a node without configuration of the already running node. On physical nodes these are usually physical interfaces. On virtual nodes their equivalent.
A system, e.g., supporting the ACP according to this document. Can be virtual or physical. Physical nodes are called devices.
The identifier of an ACP node inside that ACP. It is the last 64 (see ) or 78 bits (see ) of the ACP address.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Technology":
"The hardware and software dedicated to detecting or causing changes
in physical processes through direct monitoring and/or control of physical
devices such as valves, pumps, etc". OT networks are today in most cases
well separated from Information Technology (IT) networks.
An out-of-band network is a secondary network
used to manage a primary network. The equipment of the primary network is connected to
the out-of-band network via dedicated management ports on the primary network equipment.
Serial (console) management ports were historically most common, higher end network equipment
now also has ethernet ports dedicated only for management. An out-of-band network provides
management access to the primary network independent of the configuration state of the primary
network. One of the goals of the ACP is to provide this benefit of out-of-band
networks virtually on the primary network equipment. The ACP VRF acts as a virtual out
of band network device providing configuration independent management access.
The ACP secure channels are the virtual links of the ACP virtual out-of-band network,
meant to be operating independent of the configuration of the primary network.
See also ->"in-band (management)".
"IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks". The routing protocol used in the ACP. See .
"Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority". A vendor/manufacturer
or delegated cloud service on the Internet used as part of the BRSKI protocol.
An ACP registrar is an entity (software and/or person) that is orchestrating
the enrollment of ACP nodes with the ACP domain certificate. ANI nodes use
BRSKI, so ANI registrars are also called BRSKI registrars. For non-ANI ACP nodes,
the registrar mechanisms are undefined by this document. See .
Renewal and other maintenance (such as revocation) of ACP domain certificates
may be performed by other entities than registrars. EST must be supported for
ACP domain certificate renewal (see ). BRSKI
is an extension of EST, so ANI/BRSKI registrars can easily support ACP domain
certificate renewal in addition to initial enrollment.
"secured Unique Device Identifier". Another term not used in this document
to refer to an IDevID.
"Unique Device Identifier". In the context of this document unsecured
identity information of a node typically consisting of at least device model/type and
serial number, often in a vendor specific format. See sUDI and LDevID.
A "Unique Local Address" (ULA) is an IPv6 address in the block fc00::/7, defined in
. It is the approximate IPv6 counterpart of the IPv4 private address
(). The ULA Global ID prefix are the first 48 bits of a ULA address. In this document it is abbreviated as "ULA prefix".
The ACP is modeled in this document as a "Virtual Routing and Forwarding" instance (VRF). This means that it is based on a "virtual router" consisting of a separate IPv6 forwarding table to which the ACP virtual interfaces are attached and an associated IPv6 routing table separate from the Data-Plane. Unlike the VRFs on MPLS/VPN-PE () or LISP XTR (), the ACP VRF does not have any special "core facing" functionality or routing/mapping protocols shared across multiple VRFs. In vendor products a VRF such as the ACP-VRF may also be referred to as a so called VRF-lite.
An ACP zone is a set of ACP nodes using the same zone field value in their ACP address according to . Zones are a mechanism to support structured addressing of ACP addresses within the same /48 bit ULA prefix.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119],[RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Autonomic Functions need a stable infrastructure to run on, and all autonomic functions should use the same infrastructure to minimize the complexity of the network. In this way, there is only need for a single discovery mechanism, a single security mechanism, and single instances of other processes that distributed functions require.Today, bootstrapping a new node typically requires all nodes between a controlling node such as an SDN controller ("Software Defined Networking", see ) and the new node to be completely and correctly addressed, configured and secured. Bootstrapping and configuration of a network happens in rings around the controller - configuring each ring of devices before the next one can be bootstrapped. Without console access (for example through an out-of-band network) it is not possible today to make devices securely reachable before having configured the entire network leading up to them.With the ACP, secure bootstrap of new devices and whole new networks can happen without requiring any configuration of unconfigured devices along the path: As long as all devices along the path support ACP and a zero-touch bootstrap mechanism such as BRSKI, the ACP across a whole network of unconfigured devices can be brought up without operator/provisioning intervention. The ACP also provides additional security for any bootstrap mechanism, because it encrypts the traffic along the path hop-by-hop.Today, most critical control plane protocols and network management protocols are using the Data-Plane of the network. This leads to often undesirable dependencies between control and management plane on one side and the Data-Plane on the other: Only if the forwarding and control plane of the Data-Plane are configured correctly, will the Data-Plane and the management plane work as expected.Data-Plane connectivity can be affected by errors and faults, for example misconfigurations that make AAA (Authentication, Authorization and Accounting) servers unreachable or can lock an administrator out of a device; routing or addressing issues can make a device unreachable; shutting down interfaces over which a current management session is running can lock an admin irreversibly out of the device. Traditionally only out-of-band access can help recover from such issues (such as serial console or ethernet management port).Data-Plane dependencies also affect applications in a Network Operations Center (NOC) such as SDN controller applications: Certain network changes are today hard to implement, because the change itself may affect reachability of the devices. Examples are address or mask changes, routing changes, or security policies. Today such changes require precise hop-by-hop planning.Note that specific control plane functions for the Data-Plane often want to depend on forwarding of their packets via the Data-Plane: Aliveness and routing protocol signaling packets across the Data-Plane to verify reachability across the Data-Plane, using IPv4 signaling packets for IPv4 routing vs. IPv6 signaling packets for IPv6 routing.Assuming appropriate implementation (see for more details), the ACP provides reachability that is independent of the Data-Plane. This allows the control plane and management plane to operate more robustly:
For management plane protocols, the ACP provides the functionality of a Virtual out-of-band (VooB) channel, by providing connectivity to all nodes regardless of their Data-Plane configuration, routing and forwarding tables.For control plane protocols, the ACP allows their operation even when the Data-Plane is temporarily faulty, or during transitional events, such as routing changes, which may affect the control plane at least temporarily. This is specifically important for autonomic service agents, which could affect Data-Plane connectivity.The document "Using Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM" explains this use case for the ACP in significantly more detail and explains how the ACP can be used in practical network operations.The following requirements where identified as the basis for the design of the ACP based on the above use-cases (). These requirements are informative for this specification because they (merely) represent the use-case requirements. The keywords are therefore highlighted to be different from RFC2119. The ACP as specified in the normative parts of this document is meeting or exceeding these use-case requirements:The ACP _SHOULD_ provide robust connectivity: As far as possible, it should be independent of configured addressing, configuration and routing. Requirements 2 and 3 build on this requirement, but also have value on their own.The ACP _MUST_ have a separate address space from the Data-Plane. Reason: traceability, debug-ability, separation from Data-Plane, infrastructure security (filtering based on known address space).The ACP _MUST_ use autonomically managed address space. Reason: easy bootstrap and setup ("autonomic"); robustness (admin can't mess things up so easily). This document suggests using ULA addressing for this purpose ("Unique Local Address", see ).The ACP _MUST_ be generic, that is it MUST be usable by all the functions and protocols of the ANI. Clients of the ACP MUST NOT be tied to a particular application or transport protocol.The ACP _MUST_ provide security: Messages coming through the ACP MUST be authenticated to be from a trusted node, and SHOULD (very strong SHOULD) be encrypted.Explanation for ACP4: In a fully autonomic network (AN), newly written ASA could potentially all communicate exclusively via GRASP with each other, and if that was assumed to be the only requirement against the ACP, it would not need to provide IPv6 layer connectivity between nodes, but only GRASP connectivity. Nevertheless, because ACP also intends to support non-AN networks, it it is crucial to support IPv6 layer connectivity across the ACP to support any transport and application layer protocols.The ACP operates hop-by-hop, because this interaction can be built on IPv6 link local addressing, which is autonomic, and has no dependency on configuration (requirement 1). It may be necessary to have ACP connectivity across non-ACP nodes, for example to link ACP nodes over the general Internet. This is possible, but introduces a dependency against stable/resilient routing over the non-ACP hops (see ).The Autonomic Control Plane is constructed in the following way (for details, see ):
An ACP node creates a Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instance, or a similar virtual context.It determines, following a policy, a candidate peer list. This is the list of nodes to which it should establish an Autonomic Control Plane. Default policy is: To all link-layer adjacent nodes supporting ACP.For each node in the candidate peer list, it authenticates that node and negotiates a mutually acceptable channel type.For each node in the candidate peer list, it then establishes a secure tunnel of the negotiated type. The resulting tunnels are then placed into the previously set up VRF. This creates an overlay network with hop-by-hop tunnels.Inside the ACP VRF, each node assigns its ULA IPv6 address to a Loopback interface assigned to the ACP VRF.Each node runs a lightweight routing protocol, to announce reachability of the virtual addresses inside the ACP (see ).Note:
Non-autonomic NMS ("Network Management Systems") or SDN controllers have to be explicitly configured for connection into the ACP.Connecting over non-ACP Layer-3 clouds requires explicit configuration. See .None of the above operations (except explicit configured ones) are reflected in the configuration of the node.The following figure illustrates the ACP.
ACP node 1 ACP node 2
................... ...................
secure . . secure . . secure
channel: +-----------+ : channel : +-----------+ : channel
..--------| ACP VRF |---------------------| ACP VRF |---------..
: / \ / \ <--routing--> / \ / \ :
: \ / \ / \ / \ / :
..--------| Loopback |---------------------| Loopback |---------..
: | interface | : : | interface | :
: +-----------+ : : +-----------+ :
: : : :
: Data-Plane :...............: Data-Plane :
: : link : :
:.................: :.................:
The resulting overlay network is normally based exclusively on hop-by-hop tunnels. This is because addressing used on links is IPv6 link local addressing, which does not require any prior set-up. In this way the ACP can be built even if there is no configuration on the node, or if the Data-Plane has issues such as addressing or routing problems.This section describes the components and steps to set up an Autonomic Control Plane (ACP), and highlights the key properties which make it "indestructible" against many inadvertent changes to the Data-Plane, for example caused by misconfigurations.An ACP node can be a router, switch, controller, NMS host, or any other IP capable node. Initially, it must have its ACP domain certificate, as well as an (empty) ACP Adjacency Table (described in ). It then can start to discover ACP neighbors and build the ACP. This is described step by step in the following sections:The ACP relies on group security. An ACP domain is a group of nodes that trust
each other to participate in ACP operations. To establish trust, each ACP member
requires keying material: An ACP node MUST have a certificate (LDevID)
and a Trust Anchor (TA) consisting of a certificate (chain) used to sign the
LDevID of all ACP domain members. The LDevID is used to cryptographically authenticate
the membership of its owner node in the ACP domain to other ACP domain members,
the TA is used to authenticate the ACP domain membership of other nodes (see ).The LDevID is called the ACP domain certificate, the TA is the Certificate Authority (CA) of the ACP domain.The ACP does not mandate specific mechanisms by which this keying material is provisioned into the ACP node, it only requires the Domain information field as specified in in its domain certificate as well as those of candidate ACP peers. See for more information about enrollment or provisioning options.This document uses the term ACP in many places where the Autonomic Networking reference documents and use the word autonomic. This is done because those reference documents consider (only) fully autonomic networks and nodes, but support of ACP does not require support for other components of autonomic networks. Therefore the word autonomic might be misleading to operators interested in only the ACP. defines the term "Autonomic Domain" as a collection of autonomic nodes. ACP nodes do not need to be fully autonomic, but when they are, then the ACP domain is an autonomic domain. Likewise, defines the term "Domain Certificate" as the certificate used in an autonomic domain. The ACP domain certificate is that domain certificate when ACP nodes are (fully) autonomic nodes. Finally, this document uses the term ACP network to refer to the network created by active ACP nodes in an ACP domain. The ACP network itself can extend beyond ACP nodes through the mechanisms described in .The ACP domain certificate SHOULD be used for any authentication between nodes with ACP domain certificates (ACP nodes and NOC nodes) where the required condition is ACP domain membership, such as ACP node to NOC/OAM end-to-en security and ASA to ASA end-to-end security. defines this "ACP domain membership check". The uses of this check that are standardized in this document are for the establishment of ACP secure channels () and for ACP GRASP ().Information about the domain MUST be encoded in the domain certificate in a subjectAltName / rfc822Name field according to the following ABNF definition ():[RFC Editor: Please substitute SELF in all occurences of rfcSELF in this document with the RFC number assigned to this document and remove this comment line] ] ; as of RFC1034, section 3.5
routing-subdomain = [ rsub " ." ] acp-domain-name
acp-domain-name = ; ; as of RFC 1034, section 3.5
extensions = *( "+" extension )
extension = ; future standard definition.
; Must fit RFC5322 simple dot-atom format.
Example:
domain-information = rfcSELF+fd89b714f3db00000200000064000000
+area51.research@acp.example.com
acp-domain-name = acp.example.com
routing-subdomain = area51.research.acp.example.com
]]>Nodes complying with this specification MUST be able to receive their ACP address through the domain certificate, in which case their own ACP domain certificate MUST have the 32hex-dig "acp-address" field. Nodes complying with this specification MUST also be able to authenticate nodes as ACP domain members / ACP secure channel peers when they have an empty or 0-value acp-address field. See ."acp-domain-name" is used to indicate the ACP Domain across which all ACP nodes trust each other and are willing to build ACP channels to each other. See .
Acp-domain-name SHOULD be the FQDN of a DNS domain owned by the operator assigning the certificate. This is a simple method to ensure that the domain is globally unique and collision of ACP addresses would therefore only happen due to ULA hash collisions. If the operator does not own any FQDN, it should choose a string (in FQDN format) that it intends to be equally unique."routing-subdomain" is the autonomic subdomain composed of "rsub" and "acp-domain-name". "rsub" is optional. When not present, "routing-subdomain" is the same as "acp-domain-name". "routing-subdomain" determines the /48 ULA prefix for ACP addresses. "rsub" therefore allows to use multiple /48 ULA prefixes in an ACP domain. See for example use-cases.The optional "extensions" field is used for future standardized extensions to this specification. It MUST be ignored if present and not understood.Formatting notes:
"rsub" needs to be in the "local-part": If the format just had routing-subdomain as the domain part of the domain-information, rsub and acp-domain-name could not be separated from each other. It also makes acp-domain-name a valid e-mail target across all routing-subdomains."acp-address" cannot use standard IPv6 address formats because it must match the simple dot-atom format of . The character ":" is not allowed in that format.If "acp-address" is empty, and "rsub" is empty too, the "local-part" will have the format "rfcSELF + + extension(s)". The two plus characters are necessary so the node can unambiguously parse that both "acp-address" and "rsub" are empty.The maximum size of "domain-information" is 254 characters and the maximum size of node-info is 64 characters according to that is referring to (superseded by ).The subjectAltName / rfc822Name encoding of the ACP domain name and ACP address is used for the following reasons: It should be possible to share the LDevID with other uses beside the ACP. Therefore, the information element required for the ACP should be encoded so that it minimizes the possibility of creating incompatibilities with such other uses.The information for the ACP should not cause incompatibilities with any pre-existing ASN.1 software. This eliminates the introduction of a novel information element because that could require extensions to such pre-existing ASN.1 parsers.subjectAltName / rfc822Name is a pre-existing element that must be supported by all existing ASN.1 parsers for LDevID.The element required for the ACP should not be misinterpreted by any other uses of the LDevID. If the element used for the ACP is interpreted by other uses, the impact should be benign.Using an IP address format encoding could result in non-benign misinterpretation of the domain information field; other uses unaware of the ACP could try to do something with the ACP address that would fail to work correctly. For example, the address could be interpreted to be an address of the node which does not belong to the ACP VRF.At minimum, both the AN domain name and the non-domain name derived part of the ACP address need to be encoded in one or more appropriate fields of the certificate, so there are not many alternatives with pre-existing fields where the only possible conflicts would likely be beneficial.rfc822Name encoding is quite flexible. The ACP information field encodes the full ACP address AND the domain name with rsub part, so that it is easier to examine/use the "domain information field".The format of the rfc822Name is chosen so that an operator can set up a mailbox called
rfcSELF@<domain> that would receive emails sent towards the rfc822Name of any node inside a domain. This is possible because in many modern mail systems, components behind a "+" character are considered part of a single mailbox. In other words, it is not necessary to set up a separate mailbox for every ACP node, but only one for the whole domain.In result, if any unexpected use of the ACP addressing information in a certificate happens, it is benign and detectable: it would be mail to that mailbox.See section 4.2.1.6 of for details on the subjectAltName field.The following points constitute the ACP domain membership check
of a candidate peer certificate, independent of the protocol used:
The peer certificate is valid (lifetime).The peer has proved ownership of the private key associated with the certifictes public key.The peer's certificate is signed by one of the trust anchors associated with the ACP domain certificate.If the node certificate indicates a Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Distribution Point (CDP) (, section 4.2.1.13) or Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responder (, section 4.2.2.1), then the peer's certificate must be valid according to those criteria: An OCSP check for the peer's certificate across the ACP must succeed or the peer certificate must not be listed in the CRL retrieved from the CDP.The peer's certificate has a syntactically valid ACP domain information field (encoded as subjectAltName / rfc822Name) and the acp-domain-name in that peer's domain information field is the same as in this ACP node's certificate.Only when checking a candidate peer's certificate for the purpose of establishing an ACP secure channel,
one additional check is performed:
The candidate peer certificate's ACP domain information field has a non-empty acp-address field (either 32hex-dig or 0, according to ).Rule 6: for the establishment of ACP secure channels ensures that they will only be built between nodes which indicate through the acp-address in their ACP domain certificate indicate ability and permission by the Registrar to participate in ACP secure-channels. Nodes without an empty acp-adress field can only use it for non-ACP-secure channel authentication purposes. The special value 0 in an ACP certificates acp-address field is used for nodes that can and should determine their ACP address through other mechanisms than learning it through their ACP domain certificate, but which are still permitted to establish ACP secure channels. Mechanisms for those nodes to determine their ACP address are outside the scope of this specification.ACP nodes MUST support certificate renewal via EST
("Enrollment over Secure Transport", see )
and MAY support other mechanisms. An ACP network MUST have at least one
ACP node supporting EST server functionality across the ACP so that EST
renewal is useable.ACP nodes SHOULD be able to remember the EST server from which they last
renewed their ACP domain certificate and SHOULD provide the ability
for this remembered EST server to also be set by the ACP Registrar
(see ) that initially enrolled the ACP
device with its ACP domain certificate. When BRSKI (see )
is used, the ACP address of the BRSKI registrar from the BRSKI TLS
connection SHOULD be remembered and used for the next renewal via
EST if that registrar also announces itself as an EST server
via GRASP (see next section) on its ACP address.ACP nodes that are EST servers MUST announce their service via GRASP in the ACP
through M_FLOOD messages. See ,
section 2.8.11 for the definition of this message type: The formal definition of the objective in Concise data definition language (CDDL)
(see ) is as follows: The objective value "SRV.est" indicates that the objective is an
compliant EST server because "est" is an
registered service name for .
Objective-value MUST be ignored if present. Backward compatible extensions to
MAY be indicated through objective-value.
Non compatible certificate renewal options MUST use a different objective-name.The M_FLOOD message MUST be sent periodically. The default SHOULD be 60 seconds,
the value SHOULD be operator configurable but SHOULD be
not smaller than 60 seconds. The frequency of sending MUST be such
that the aggregate amount of periodic M_FLOODs from all flooding sources
causes only negligible traffic across the ACP. The time-to-live (ttl) parameter SHOULD be 3.5 times the period so that up
to three consecutive messages can be dropped before considering an announcement expired.
In the example above, the ttl is 210000 msec, 3.5 times 60 seconds. When a service announcer
using these parameters unexpectedly dies immediately after sending the M_FLOOD,
receivers would consider it expired 210 seconds later. When a receiver tries to
connect to this dead service before this timeout, it will experience a failing connection and
use that as an indication that the service is dead and select another instance of the
same service instead.When performing renewal, the node SHOULD attempt to connect to the remembered EST server.
If that fails, it SHOULD attempt to connect to an EST server learned via GRASP. The server
with which certificate renewal succeeds SHOULD be remembered for the next renewal.Remembering the last renewal server and preferring it provides stickiness
which can help diagnostics. It also provides some protection against off-path
compromised ACP members announcing bogus information into GRASP.Renewal of certificates SHOULD start after less than 50% of the domain certificate
lifetime so that network operations has ample time to investigate and
resolve any problems that causes a node to not renew its domain certificate
in time - and to allow prolonged periods of running parts of a network
disconnected from any CA.The ACP node SHOULD support Certificate Revocation Lists (CRL) via HTTPs from one
or more CRL Distribution Points (CDPs). The CDP(s) MUST be indicated
in the Domain Certificate when used. If the CDP URL uses an IPv6 address
(ULA address when using the addressing rules specified in this document),
the ACP node will connect to the CDP via the ACP. If the CDP URL uses an IPv6 address
(ULA address when using the addressing rules specified in this document),
the ACP node will connect to the CDP via the ACP. If the CDP uses a
domain name, the ACP node will connect to the CDP via the Data-Plane.It is common to use domain names for CDP(s), but there is no requirement
for the ACP to support DNS. Any DNS lookup in the Data-Plane is
not only a possible security issue, but it would also not indicate whether
the resolved address is meant to be reachable across the ACP. Therefore,
the use of an IPv6 address versus the use of a DNS name doubles as an
indicator whether or not to reach the CDP via the ACP.A CDP can be reachable across the ACP either by running it on a
node with ACP or by connecting its node via an ACP connect interface (see ).
The CDP SHOULD use an ACP domain certificate for its HTTPs connections.
The connecting ACP node SHOULD verify that the CDP certificate used
during the HTTPs connection has the same ACP address as indicated in the
CDP URL of the nodes ACP domain certificateCertificate lifetime may be set to shorter lifetimes than customary
(1 year) because certificate renewal is fully automated via ACP and EST.
The primary limiting factor for shorter certificate lifetimes
is load on the EST server(s) and CA. It is therefore recommended that
ACP domain certificates are managed via a CA chain where the assigning
CA has enough performance to manage short lived certificates. See also
for discussion about an example setup achieving
this.When certificate lifetimes are sufficiently short, such as few hours,
certificate revocation may not be necessary, allowing to simplify the overall
certificate maintenance infrastructure.See for further optimizations of certificate
maintenance when BRSKI can be used ("Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructures", see ).An ACP node may determine that its ACP domain certificate
has expired, for example because the ACP node was powered down or
disconnected longer than its certificate lifetime. In this case, the ACP
node SHOULD convert to a role of a re-enrolling candidate ACP node.In this role, the node does maintain the trust anchor and certificate
chain associated with its ACP domain certificate exclusively for the purpose
of re-enrollment, and attempts (or waits) to get re-enrolled with a new ACP
certificate. The details depend on the mechanisms/protocols used
by the ACP registrars.Please refer to for explanations about
ACP registrars and vouchers as used in the following text.When BRSKI is used (aka: on ACP nodes that are ANI nodes), the re-enrolling
candidate ACP node would attempt to enroll like a candidate ACP node (BRSKI pledge),
but instead of using the ACP nodes IDevID, it SHOULD first attempt to use its ACP domain
certificate in the BRSKI TLS authentication. The BRSKI registrar MAY honor
this certificate beyond its expiration date purely for the purpose of
re-enrollment. Using the ACP node's domain certificate allows the BRSKI
registrar to learn that nodes ACP domain information field,
so that the BRSKI registrar can re-assign the same ACP address information
to the ACP node in the new ACP domain certificate.If the BRSKI registrar denies the use of the old ACP domain certificate,
the re-enrolling candidate ACP node MUST re-attempt re-enrollment using
its IDevID as defined in BRSKI during the TLS connection setup.Both when the BRSKI connection is attempted with the old ACP domain certificate
or the IDevID, the re-enrolling candidate ACP node SHOULD authenticate
the BRSKI registrar during TLS connection setup based on its existing trust
anchor/certificate chain information associated with its old ACP certificate.
The re-enrolling candidate ACP node SHOULD only request a voucher from the BRSKI registrar
when this authentication fails during TLS connection setup.When other mechanisms than BRSKI are used for ACP domain certificate
enrollment, the principles of the re-enrolling candidate ACP node are the same.
The re-enrolling candidate ACP node attempts to authenticate any ACP registrar peers
during re-enrollment protocol/mechanisms via its existing certificate chain/trust anchor
and provides its existing ACP domain certificate and other identification
(such as the IDevID) as necessary to the registrar.Maintaining existing trust anchor information is especially important
when enrollment mechanisms are used that unlike BRSKI do not leverage
a voucher mechanism to authenticate the ACP registrar and where therefore the
injection of certificate failures could otherwise make the ACP node easily
attackable remotely.When using BRSKI or other protocol/mechanisms supporting vouchers,
maintaining existing trust anchor information allows for re-enrollment
of expired ACP certificates to be more lightweight, especially in
environments where repeated acquisition of vouchers during the lifetime
of ACP nodes may be operationally expensive or otherwise undesirable.An ACP domain certificate is called failing in this document,
if/when the ACP node can determine that it was revoked (or explicitly
not renewed), or in the absence of such explicit local diagnostics,
when the ACP node fails to connect to other ACP nodes in the same ACP
domain using its ACP certificate. For connection failures to
determine the ACP domain certificate as the culprit, the peer
should pass the domain membership check ()
and other reasons for the connection failure can be excluded because of
the connection error diagnostics.This type of failure can happen during setup/refresh of a secure ACP channel
connections or any other use of the ACP domain certificate, such as for the
TLS connection to an EST server for the renewal of the ACP domain
certificate.Example reasons for failing certificates that the ACP node can only
discover through connection failure are that the domain certificate or
any of its signing certificates could have been revoked or may have expired,
but the ACP node can not self-diagnose this condition directly. Revocation
information or clock synchronization may only be available across the ACP,
but the ACP node can not build ACP secure channels because ACP peers reject
the ACP node's domain certificate.ACP nodes SHOULD support the option to determines whether its ACP
certificate is failing, and when it does, put itself into the role of a
re-enrolling candidate ACP node as explained above ().To know to which nodes to establish an ACP channel, every ACP node maintains an adjacency table. The adjacency table contains information about adjacent ACP nodes, at a minimum: Node-ID (identifier of the node inside the ACP, see and ), interface on which neighbor was discovered (by GRASP as explained below), link-local IPv6 address of neighbor on that interface, certificate (including domain information field). An ACP node MUST maintain this adjacency table up to date. This table is used to determine to which neighbor an ACP connection is established.Where the next ACP node is not directly adjacent (i.e., not on a link
connected to this node), the information in the adjacency table can be supplemented by configuration. For example, the Node-ID and IP address could be configured.The adjacency table MAY contain information about the validity and trust of the adjacent ACP node's certificate. However, subsequent steps MUST always start with authenticating the peer.The adjacency table contains information about adjacent ACP nodes in general, independently of their domain and trust status. The next step determines to which of those ACP nodes an ACP connection should be established.[RFC Editor: GRASP draft is in RFC editor queue, waiting for dependencies, including ACP. Please ensure that references to I-D.ietf-anima-grasp that include section number references (throughout this document) will be updated in case any last-minute changes in GRASP would make those section references change.DULL GRASP is a limited subset of GRASP intended to operate across an
insecure link-local scope. See section 2.5.2 of for its
formal definition. The ACP uses one instance of DULL GRASP for every L2 interface
of the ACP node to discover link level adjacent candidate ACP neighbors. Unless modified
by policy as noted earlier ( bullet point 2.), native interfaces
(e.g., physical interfaces on physical nodes) SHOULD be initialized automatically to a state in which
ACP discovery can be performed and any native interfaces with ACP neighbors can
then be brought into the ACP even if the interface is otherwise not configured.
Reception of packets on such otherwise not configured interfaces MUST be limited so that
at first only IPv6 StateLess Address Auto Configuration (SLAAC - )
and DULL GRASP work and then only
the following ACP secure channel setup packets - but not any other unnecessary traffic
(e.g., no other link-local IPv6 transport stack responders for example).Note that the use of the IPv6 link-local multicast address (ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS) implies
the need to use Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2, see )
to announce the desire to receive packets for
that address. Otherwise DULL GRASP could fail to operate correctly in the presence of
MLD snooping, non-ACP enabled L2 switches - because those would stop forwarding DULL GRASP
packets. Switches not supporting MLD snooping simply need to operate as pure L2 bridges for
IPv6 multicast packets for DULL GRASP to work.ACP discovery SHOULD NOT be enabled by default on non-native interfaces. In particular, ACP discovery MUST NOT run inside the ACP across ACP virtual interfaces. See for further, non-normative suggestions on how to enable/disable ACP at node and interface level. See for more details about tunnels (typical non-native interfaces). See for how ACP should be extended on devices operating (also) as L2 bridges.Note: If an ACP node also implements BRSKI to enroll its ACP domain certificate
(see for a summary), then the above considerations also apply to
GRASP discovery for BRSKI. Each DULL instance of GRASP
set up for ACP is then also used for the discovery of a bootstrap proxy via BRSKI when the node
does not have a domain certificate.
Discovery of ACP neighbors happens only when the node does have the certificate. The node
therefore never needs to discover both a bootstrap proxy and ACP neighbor at the same time.An ACP node announces itself to potential ACP peers by use of the "AN_ACP" objective.
This is a synchronization objective intended to be flooded on a single link using the
GRASP Flood Synchronization (M_FLOOD) message. In accordance with the design of the Flood message,
a locator consisting of a specific link-local IP address, IP protocol number and port number
will be distributed with the flooded objective. An example of the message is informally: The formal CDDL definition is: The objective-flags field is set to indicate synchronization.The loop-count is fixed at 1 since this is a link-local operation.In the above example the RECOMMENDED period of sending of the
objective is 60 seconds. The indicated ttl of 210000 msec means
that the objective would be cached by ACP nodes even when two
out of three messages are dropped in transit.The session-id is a random number used for loop prevention (distinguishing a message from a prior instance of the same message). In DULL this field is irrelevant but must still be set according to the GRASP specification.The originator MUST be the IPv6 link local address of the originating ACP node on the sending interface.The 'objective-value' parameter is a string indicating the secure channel protocol available at the specified or implied locator.The locator-option is optional and only required when the secure channel protocol is not offered at a well-defined port number, or if there is no well-defined port number."IKEv2" is the abbreviation for "Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2", as defined in . It is the main protocol used by the Internet IP security architecture (IPsec). We therefore use the term "IKEv2" and not "IPsec" in the GRASP definitions and example above. "IKEv2" has a well-defined port number 500, but in the above example, the candidate ACP neighbor is offering ACP secure channel negotiation via IKEv2 on port 15000 (for the sake of creating a non-standard example)."DTLS" indicates datagram Transport Layer Security version 1.2. There is no default UDP port, it must always be locally assigned by the node. See .If a locator is included, it MUST be an O_IPv6_LOCATOR, and the IPv6 address MUST be the same as the initiator address (these are DULL requirements to minimize third party DoS attacks).The secure channel methods defined in this document use the objective values of "IKEv2" and "DTLS". There is no distinction between IKEv2 native and GRE-IKEv2 because this is purely negotiated via IKEv2.A node that supports more than one secure channel protocol method needs to flood multiple versions
of the "AN_ACP" objective so that each method can be accompanied by its own locator-option. This can use a single GRASP M_FLOOD message as shown in .Note that a node serving both as an ACP node and BRSKI Join Proxy may choose to distribute the "AN_ACP" objective and the respective BRSKI in the same M_FLOOD message, since GRASP allows multiple objectives in one message. This may be impractical though if ACP and BRSKI operations are implemented via separate software modules / ASAs.The result of the discovery is the IPv6 link-local address of the neighbor as well as its supported secure channel protocols (and non-standard port they are running on). It is stored in the ACP Adjacency Table, see which then drives the further building of the ACP to that neighbor.An ACP node must determine to which other ACP nodes in the adjacency table it should build an ACP connection. This is based on the information in the ACP Adjacency table.The ACP is established exclusively between nodes in the same domain. This includes all routing subdomains. explains how ACP connections across multiple routing subdomains are special.The result of the candidate ACP neighbor selection process is a list of adjacent or configured autonomic neighbors to which an ACP channel should be established. The next step begins that channel establishment.To avoid attacks, initial discovery of candidate ACP peers cannot include any non-protected negotiation. To avoid re-inventing and validating security association mechanisms, the next step after discovering the address of a candidate neighbor can only be to try first to establish a security association with that neighbor using a well-known security association method.At this time in the lifecycle of ACP nodes, it is unclear whether it is feasible to even decide on a single MTI (mandatory to implement) security association protocol across all ACP nodes.From the use-cases it seems clear that not all type of ACP nodes can or need to connect directly to each other or are able to support or prefer all possible mechanisms. For example, code space limited IoT devices may only support DTLS because that code exists already on them for end-to-end security, but low-end in-ceiling L2 switches may only want to support Media Access Control Security (MacSec, see 802.1AE () because that is also supported in their chips. Only a flexible gateway device may need to support both of these mechanisms and potentially more.To support extensible secure channel protocol selection without a single common MTI protocol, ACP nodes must try all the ACP secure channel protocols it supports and that are feasible because the candidate ACP neighbor also announced them via its AN_ACP GRASP parameters (these are called the "feasible" ACP secure channel protocols).To ensure that the selection of the secure channel protocols always succeeds in a predictable fashion without blocking, the following rules apply:
An ACP node may choose to attempt initiate the different feasible ACP secure channel protocols it supports according to its local policies sequentially or in parallel, but it MUST support acting as a responder to all of them in parallel.Once the first secure channel protocol succeeds, the two peers know each other's certificates because they must be used by all secure channel protocols for mutual authentication. The node with the lower Node-ID in the ACP address becomes Bob, the one with the higher Node-ID in the certificate Alice.Bob becomes passive, he does not attempt to further initiate ACP secure channel protocols with Alice and does not consider it to be an error when Alice closes secure channels. Alice becomes the active party, continues to attempt setting up secure channel protocols with Bob until she arrives at the best one from her view that also works with Bob.For example, originally Bob could have been the initiator of one ACP secure channel protocol that Bob prefers and the security association succeeded. The roles of Bob and Alice are then assigned. At this stage, the protocol may not even have completed negotiating a common security profile. The protocol could for example be IPsec via IKEv2 ("IP security", see and "Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2", see . It is now up to Alice to decide how to proceed. Even if the IPsec connection from Bob succeeded, Alice might prefer another secure protocol over IPsec (e.g., FOOBAR), and try to set that up with Bob. If that preference of Alice succeeds, she would close the IPsec connection. If no better protocol attempt succeeds, she would keep the IPsec connection.All this negotiation is in the context of an "L2 interface". Alice and Bob will build ACP connections to each other on every "L2 interface" that they both connect to. An autonomic node must not assume that neighbors with the same L2 or link-local IPv6 addresses on different L2 interfaces are the same node. This can only be determined after examining the certificate after a successful security association attempt.Independent of the security association protocol chosen, candidate ACP neighbors need to be authenticated based on their domain certificate. This implies that any secure channel protocol MUST support certificate based authentication that can support the ACP domain membership check as defined in . If it fails, the connection attempt is aborted and an error logged. Attempts to reconnect MUST be throttled. The RECOMMENDED default is exponential backoff with a a minimum delay of 10 seconds and a maximum delay of 640 seconds.The following sections define the security association protocols that we consider to be important and feasible to specify in this document:An ACP node announces its ability to support IKEv2 as the ACP secure channel protocol in GRASP as "IKEv2".To run ACP via IPsec natively, no further IANA assignments/definitions are required. An ACP node that is supporting native IPsec MUST use IPsec security setup via IKEv2, tunnel mode, local and peer link-local IPv6 addresses used for encapsulation. It MUST then support ESP with AES256 for encryption and SHA256 hash and MUST NOT permit weaker crypto options.In terms of IKEv2, this means the initiator will offer to support IPsec tunnel mode with next protocol equal 41 (IPv6).IPsec tunnel mode is required because the ACP will route/forward packets received from any other ACP node across the ACP secure channels, and not only its own generated ACP packets. With IPsec transport mode, it would only be possible to send packets originated by the ACP node itself.ESP is used because ACP mandates the use of encryption for ACP secure channels.In network devices it is often more common to implement high performance virtual interfaces on top of GRE encapsulation than on top of a "native" IPsec association (without any other encapsulation than those defined by IPsec). On those devices it may be beneficial to run the ACP secure channel on top of GRE protected by the IPsec association.To run ACP via GRE/IPsec, no further IANA assignments/definitions are required.
An ACP node that is supporting ACP via GRE/IPsec MUST then support
IPsec security setup via IKEv2, IPsec transport mode, local and peer link-local IPv6 addresses used for encapsulation, ESP with AES256 encryption and SHA256 hash.When GRE is used, transport mode is sufficient because the routed ACP packets are not "tunneled" by IPsec but rather by GRE: IPsec only has to deal with the GRE/IP packet which always uses the local and peer link-local IPv6 addresses and is therefore applicable to transport mode.ESP is used because ACP mandates the use of encryption for ACP secure channels.In terms of IKEv2 negotiation, this means the initiator must offer to support IPsec transport mode with next protocol equal to GRE (47) followed by the offer for native IPsec as described above (because that option is mandatory to support).If IKEv2 initiator and responder support GRE, it will be selected. The version of GRE to be used must the according to .We define the use of ACP via DTLS in the assumption that it is likely the first transport encryption code basis supported in some classes of constrained devices.To run ACP via UDP and DTLS v1.2 a locally assigned UDP port is used that is announced as a parameter in the GRASP AN_ACP objective to candidate neighbors. All ACP nodes supporting DTLS as a secure channel protocol MUST support AES256 encryption and MUST NOT permit weaker crypto options.There is no additional session setup or other security association besides this simple DTLS setup. As soon as the DTLS session is functional, the ACP peers will exchange ACP IPv6 packets as the payload of the DTLS transport connection. Any DTLS defined security association mechanisms such as re-keying are used as they would be for any transport application relying solely on DTLS.As explained in the beginning of , there is no single secure channel mechanism mandated for all ACP nodes. Instead, this section defines two ACP profiles (baseline and constrained) for ACP nodes that do introduce such requirements.A baseline ACP node MUST support IPsec natively and MAY support IPsec via GRE. A constrained ACP node that can not support IPsec MUST support DTLS. An ACP node connecting an area of constrained ACP nodes with an area of baseline ACP nodes MUST therefore support IPsec and DTLS and supports threefore the baseline and constrained profile.ACP nodes need to specify in documentation the set of secure ACP mechanisms they support and should declare which profile they support according to above requirements.An ACP secure channel MUST immediately be terminated when the lifetime of any certificate in the chain used to authenticate the neighbor expires or becomes revoked. Note that this is not standard behavior in secure channel protocols such as IPsec because the certificate authentication only influences the setup of the secure channel in these protocols.The ACP MUST run an instance of GRASP inside of it. It is a key part of the
ACP services. The function in GRASP that makes it fundamental as a service of the ACP
is the ability to provide ACP wide service discovery (using objectives in GRASP).ACP provides IP unicast routing via the RPL routing protocol (see ).The ACP does not use IP multicast routing nor does it provide generic IP multicast services
(the handling of GRASP link-local multicast messages is explained in ).
Instead, the ACP provides service discovery via the objective discovery/announcement and
negotiation mechanisms of the ACP GRASP instance (services are a form of objectives).
These mechanisms use hop-by-hop reliable flooding of GRASP messages for both service discovery
(GRASP M_DISCOVERY messages) and service announcement (GRASP M_FLOOD messages).See for discussion about this design choice
of the ACP.In the terminology of GRASP (), the ACP is the
security and transport substrate for the GRASP instance run inside the ACP ("ACP GRASP").This means that the ACP is responsible for ensuring that this instance of GRASP is
only sending messages across the ACP GRASP virtual interfaces.
Whenever the ACP adds or deletes such an interface because of new ACP secure channels or
loss thereof, the ACP needs to indicate this to the ACP instance of GRASP. The ACP exists
also in the absence of any active ACP neighbors. It is created when the node has a domain
certificate, and continues to exist even if all of its neighbors cease operation.In this case ASAs using GRASP running on the same node would still need
to be able to discover each other's objectives. When the ACP does not exist, ASAs leveraging
the ACP instance of GRASP via APIs MUST still be able to operate, and MUST be able to
understand that there is no ACP and that therefore the ACP instance of GRASP can not
operate.The way ACP acts as the security and transport substrate for GRASP is visualized
in the following picture:
..............................ACP..............................
. .
. /-GRASP-flooding-\ ACP GRASP instance .
. / \ A
. GRASP GRASP GRASP C
. link-local unicast link-local P
. multicast messages multicast .
. messages | messages .
. | | | .
...............................................................
. v v v ACP security and transport .
. | | | substrate for GRASP .
. | | | .
. | ACP GRASP | - ACP GRASP A
. | Loopback | Loopback interface C
. | interface | - ACP-cert auth P
. | TLS | .
. ACP GRASP | ACP GRASP - ACP GRASP virtual .
. subnet1 | subnet2 virtual interfaces .
. TCP | TCP .
. | | | .
...............................................................
. | | | ^^^ Users of ACP (GRASP/ASA) .
. | | | ACP interfaces/addressing .
. | | | .
. | | | A
. | ACP-Loopback Interf.| <- ACP Loopback interface C
. | ACP-address | - address (global ULA) P
. subnet1 | subnet2 <- ACP virtual interfaces .
. link-local | link-local - link-local addresses .
...............................................................
. | | | ACP routing and forwarding .
. | RPL-routing | .
. | /IP-Forwarding\ | A
. | / \ | C
. ACP IPv6 packets ACP IPv6 packets P
. |/ \| .
. IPsec/DTLS IPsec/DTLS - ACP-cert auth .
...............................................................
| | Data-Plane
| |
| | - ACP secure channel
link-local link-local - encapsulation addresses
subnet1 subnet2 - Data-Plane interfaces
| |
ACP-Nbr1 ACP-Nbr2
GRASP unicast messages inside the ACP always use the ACP address. Link-local ACP
addresses must not be used inside objectives. GRASP unicast messages inside the ACP
are transported via TLS 1.2 () connections with AES256
encryption and SHA256. Mutual authentication uses the ACP domain membership check
defined in ().GRASP link-local multicast messages are targeted for a specific ACP virtual interface
(as defined ) but are sent by the ACP into
an ACP GRASP virtual interface that is constructed from the TCP
connection(s) to the IPv6 link-local neighbor address(es) on the underlying
ACP virtual interface. If the ACP GRASP virtual interface has two or more neighbors,
the GRASP link-local multicast messages are replicated to all neighbor TCP connections.TLS and TLS connections for GRASP in the ACP use the IANA assigned TCP port for GRASP (7107).
Effectively the transport stack is expected to be TLS for connections from/to the ACP
address (e.g., global scope address(es)) and TCP for connections from/to link-local addresses
on the ACP virtual interfaces. The latter ones are only used for flooding of GRASP
messages.TCP encapsulation for GRASP M_DISCOVERY and M_FLOOD link local messages is used because
these messages are flooded across potentially many hops to all ACP nodes and a single
link with even temporary packet loss issues (e.g., WiFi/Powerline link) can reduce the
probability for loss free transmission so much that applications would want to increase
the frequency with which they send these messages. Such shorter periodic retransmission
of datagrams would result in more traffic and processing overhead in the ACP
than the hop-by-hop reliable retransmission mechanism by TCP and duplicate elimination
by GRASP.TLS is mandated for GRASP non-link-local unicast because the ACP secure channel
mandatory authentication and encryption protects only against attacks from the outside
but not against attacks from the inside: Compromised ACP members that have (not yet) been
detected and removed (e.g., via domain certificate revocation / expiry).If GRASP peer connections would just use TCP, compromised ACP members could
simply eavesdrop passively on GRASP peer connections for whom they are on-path ("Man In The
Middle" - MITM). Or intercept and modify them. With TLS, it is not possible to completely
eliminate problems with compromised ACP members, but attacks are a lot more complex:Eavesdropping/spoofing by a compromised ACP node is still possible because
in the model of the ACP and GRASP, the provider and consumer of an objective have
initially no unique information (such as an identity) about the other side which
would allow them to distinguish a benevolent from a compromised peer. The compromised
ACP node would simply announce the objective as well, potentially filter the original
objective in GRASP when it is a MITM and act as an application level proxy. This of course
requires that the compromised ACP node understand the semantics of the GRASP negotiation
to an extent that allows it to proxy it without being detected, but in an ACP environment
this is quite likely public knowledge or even standardized.The GRASP TLS connections are run the same as any other ACP traffic through the ACP
secure channels. This leads to double authentication/encryption, which has the following
benefits:Secure channel methods such as IPsec may provide protecation against additional
attacks from such as reset-attacks.The secure channel method may leverage hardware acceleration and there may be little
or no gain in eliminating it.There is no different security model for ACP GRASP from other ACP traffic. Instead,
there is just another layer of protection against certain attacks from the inside
which is important due to the role of GRASP in the ACP.The ACP is in a separate context from the normal Data-Plane of the node. This context includes the ACP channels' IPv6 forwarding and routing as well as any required higher layer ACP functions.In classical network system, a dedicated so called Virtual routing and forwarding instance (VRF) is one logical implementation option for the ACP. If possible by the systems software architecture, separation options that minimize shared components are preferred, such as a logical container or virtual machine instance. The context for the ACP needs to be established automatically during bootstrap of a node. As much as possible it should be protected from being modified unintentionally by ("Data-Plane") configuration.Context separation improves security, because the ACP is not reachable from the Data-Plane routing or forwarding table(s). Also, configuration errors from the Data-Plane setup do not affect the ACP.The channels explained above typically only establish communication between two adjacent nodes. In order for communication to happen across multiple hops, the autonomic control plane requires ACP network wide valid addresses and routing. Each ACP node must create a Loopback interface with an ACP network wide unique address inside the ACP context (as explained in in ). This address may be used also in other virtual contexts.With the algorithm introduced here, all ACP nodes in the same routing subdomain have the same /48 ULA prefix. Conversely, ULA global IDs from different domains are unlikely to clash, such that two ACP networks can be merged, as long as the policy allows that merge. See also for a discussion on merging domains.Links inside the ACP only use link-local IPv6 addressing, such that each nodes ACP only requires one routable virtual address.Usage: Autonomic addresses are exclusively used for self-management functions inside a trusted domain. They are not used for user traffic. Communications with entities outside the trusted domain use another address space, for example normally managed routable address space (called "Data-Plane" in this document).Separation: Autonomic address space is used separately from user address space and other address realms. This supports the robustness requirement.Loopback-only: Only ACP Loopback interfaces (and potentially those configured for "ACP connect", see ) carry routable address(es); all other interfaces (called ACP virtual interfaces) only use IPv6 link local addresses. The usage of IPv6 link local addressing is discussed in .Use-ULA: For Loopback interfaces of ACP nodes, we use Unique Local Addresses (ULA), as defined in with L=1 (as defined in section 3.1 of ). Note that the random hash for ACP Loopback addresses uses the definition in and not the one of section 3.2.2.No external connectivity: They do not provide access to the Internet. If a node requires further reaching connectivity, it should use another, traditionally managed address scheme in parallel.Addresses in the ACP are permanent, and do not support temporary addresses as defined in .Addresses in the ACP are not considered sensitive on privacy grounds because ACP nodes are not expected to be end-user devices. Therefore, ACP addresses do not need to be pseudo-random as discussed in . Because they are not propagated to untrusted (non ACP) nodes and stay within a domain (of trust), we also consider them not to be subject to scanning attacks.The ACP is based exclusively on IPv6 addressing, for a variety of reasons:
Simplicity, reliability and scale: If other network layer protocols were supported, each would have to have its own set of security associations, routing table and process, etc.Autonomic functions do not require IPv4: Autonomic functions and autonomic service agents are new concepts. They can be exclusively built on IPv6 from day one. There is no need for backward compatibility.OAM protocols do not require IPv4: The ACP may carry OAM protocols. All relevant protocols (SNMP, TFTP, SSH, SCP, Radius, Diameter, ...) are available in IPv6. See also for how ACP could be made to interoperate with IPv4 only OAM.The Base ULA addressing scheme for ACP nodes has the following format:
8 40 2 78
+--+-------------------------+------+------------------------------+
|fd| hash(routing-subdomain) | Type | (sub-scheme) |
+--+-------------------------+------+------------------------------+
The first 48 bits follow the ULA scheme, as defined in , to which a type field is added:
"fd" identifies a locally defined ULA address.The 40 bits ULA "global ID" (term from ) for ACP addresses carried in the domain information field of domain certificates are the first 40 bits of the SHA256 hash of the routing subdomain from the same domain information field. In the example of , the routing subdomain is "area51.research.acp.example.com" and the 40 bits ULA "global ID" 89b714f3db.To allow for extensibility, the fact that the ULA "global ID" is a hash of the routing subdomain SHOULD NOT be assumed by any ACP node during normal operations. The hash function is only executed during the creation of the certificate. If BRSKI is used then the BRSKI registrar will create the domain information field in response to the EST Certificate Signing Request (CSR) Attribute Request message by the pledge.Type: This field allows different address sub-schemes. This addresses the "upgradability" requirement. Assignment of types for this field will be maintained by IANA.The sub-scheme may imply a range or set of addresses assigned to the node, this is called the ACP address range/set and explained in each sub-scheme.Please refer to and for further explanations why the following Sub-Addressing schemes are used and why multiple are necessary.The sub-scheme defined here is defined by the Type value 00b (zero) in the base scheme and 0 in the Z bit.
64 64
+-----------------+---+---------++-----------------------------+---+
| (base scheme) | Z | Zone-ID || Node-ID |
| | | || Registrar-ID | Node-Number| V |
+-----------------+---+---------++--------------+--------------+---+
50 1 13 48 15 1
The fields are defined as follows:Zone-ID: If set to all zero bits: The Node-ID bits are used as an identifier (as opposed to a locator). This results in a non-hierarchical, flat addressing scheme. Any other value indicates a zone. See on how this field is used in detail.Z: MUST be 0.Node-ID: A unique value for each node.The 64 bit Node-ID is derived and composed as follows:Registrar-ID (48 bit): A number unique inside the domain that identifies the ACP registrar which assigned the Node-ID to the node. A MAC address of the ACP registrar can be used for this purpose.Node-Number: A number which is unique for a given ACP registrar, to identify the node. This can be a sequentially assigned number.V (1 bit): Virtualization bit: 0: Indicates the ACP itself ("ACP node base system); 1: Indicates the optional "host" context on the ACP node (see below).In the ACP Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme, the ACP address in the certificate has Zone-ID and V fields as all zero bits. The ACP address set includes addresses with any Zone-ID value and any V value.The "Node-ID" itself is unique in a domain (i.e., the Zone-ID is not required for uniqueness). Therefore, a node can be addressed either as part of a flat hierarchy (Zone-ID = 0), or with an aggregation scheme (any other Zone-ID). An address with Zone-ID = 0 is an identifier, with a Zone-ID !=0 it is a locator. See for more details.The Virtual bit in this sub-scheme allows the easy addition of the ACP as a component to existing systems without causing problems in the port number space between the services in the ACP and the existing system. V:0 is the ACP router (autonomic node base system), V:1 is the host with pre-existing transport endpoints on it that could collide with the transport endpoints used by the ACP router. The ACP host could for example have a p2p virtual interface with the V:0 address as its router into the ACP. Depending on the software design of ASAs, which is outside the scope of this specification, they may use the V:0 or V:1 address.The location of the V bit(s) at the end of the address allows the announcement of a single prefix for each ACP node. For example, in a network with 20,000 ACP nodes, this avoid 20,000 additional routes in the routing table.The Zone-ID allows for the introduction of route prefixes in the addressing scheme.Zone-ID = 0 is the default addressing scheme in an ACP domain. Every ACP node with a Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme address MUST respond to its ACP address with Zone-ID = 0. Used on its own this leads to a non-hierarchical address scheme, which is suitable for networks up to a certain size. Zone-ID = 0 addresses act as identifiers for the nodes, and aggregation of these address in the ACP routing table is not possible.If aggregation is required, the 13 bit Zone-ID value allows for up to 8191 zones. The allocation of Zone-ID's may either happen automatically through a to-be-defined algorithm; or it could be configured and maintained explicitly.If a node learns (see ) that it is part of a zone, it MUST also respond to its ACP address with that Zone-ID. In this case the ACP Loopback is configured with two ACP addresses: One for Zone-ID = 0 and one for the assigned Zone-ID. This method allows for a smooth transition between a flat addressing scheme and a hierarchical one. A node knowing it is in a zone MUST also use that Zone-ID != 0 address in GRASP locator fields. This eliminates the use of the identifier address (Zone-ID = 0) in forwarding and the need for network wide reachability of those non-aggregatable identifier addresses. Zone-ID != 0 addresses are assumed to be aggregatable in routing/forwarding based on how they are allocated in the ACP topology.Note: The Zone-ID is one method to introduce structure or hierarchy into the ACP. Another way is the use of the routing subdomain field in the ACP that leads to multiple /48 Global IDs within an ACP domain.Note: Zones and Zone-ID as defined here are not related to zones or zone_id. ACP zone addresses are not scoped (reachable only from within an RFC4007 zone) but reachable across the whole ACP. An RFC4007 zone_id is a zone index that has only local significance on a node, whereas an ACP Zone-ID is an identifier for an ACP zone that is unique across that ACP.The sub-scheme defined here is defined by the Type value 00b (zero) in the base scheme and 1 in the Z bit.
64 64
+---------------------+---+----------++-----------------------------+
| (base scheme) | Z | Subnet-ID|| Interface Identifier |
+---------------------+---+----------++-----------------------------+
50 1 13
The fields are defined as follows:
Subnet-ID: Configured subnet identifier.Z: MUST be 1.Interface Identifier.This sub-scheme is meant for "manual" allocation to subnets where the other addressing schemes cannot be used. The primary use case is for assignment to ACP connect subnets (see )."Manual" means that allocations of the Subnet-ID need to be done today with pre-existing, non-autonomic mechanisms. Every subnet that uses this addressing sub-scheme needs to use a unique Subnet-ID (unless some anycast setup is done).The Z bit field was added to distinguish Zone addressing and manual addressing sub-schemes without requiring one more bit in the base scheme and therefore allowing for the Vlong scheme (described below) to have one more bit available.Manual addressing sub-scheme addresses SHOULD NOT be used in ACP domain certificates. Any node capable to build ACP secure channels and permitted by Registrar policy to participate in building ACP secure channels SHOULD receive an ACP address (prefix) from one of the other ACP addressing sub-schemes. Nodes not capable (or permitted) to participate in ACP secure channels can connect to the ACP via ACP connect interfaces of ACP edge nodes (see xref target="ACPconnect"/>), without setting up an ACP secure channel. Their ACP domain certificate MUST include an empty acp-address to indicate that their ACP domain certificate is only usable for non- ACP secure channel authentication, such as end-to-end transport connections across the ACP or Data-Plane.Address management of ACP connect subnets is done using traditional assignment methods and existing IPv6 protocols. See for details.The sub-scheme defined here is defined by the Type value 01b (one) in the base scheme.
50 78
+---------------------++-----------------------------+----------+
| (base scheme) || Node-ID |
| || Registrar-ID | Node-Number| V |
+---------------------++--------------+--------------+----------+
50 46 24/16 8/16
This addressing scheme foregoes the Zone-ID field to allow for larger, flatter routed networks (e.g., as in IoT)
with 8421376 Node-Numbers (2^23+2^15). It also allows for up to 2^16 (i.e. 65536) different virtualized addresses within a node,
which could be used to address individual software components in an ACP node.The fields are the same as in the Zone-ID sub-scheme with the following refinements:V: Virtualization bit: Values 0 and 1 are assigned in the same way as in the Zone-ID sub-scheme.Registrar-ID: To maximize Node-Number and V, the Registrar-ID is reduced to 46 bits. This still permits the use of the MAC address of an ACP registrar by removing the V and U bits from the 48 bits of a MAC address (those two bits are never unique, so they cannot be used to distinguish MAC addresses).If the first bit of the "Node-Number" is "1", then the Node-Number is 16 bit long and the V field is 16 bit long. Otherwise the Node-Number is 24 bit long and the V field is 8 bit long. "0" bit Node-Numbers are intended to be used for "general purpose" ACP nodes that would potentially have a limited number (< 256) of clients (ASA/Autonomic Functions or legacy services) of the ACP that require separate V(irtual) addresses. "1" bit Node-Numbers are intended for ACP nodes that are ACP edge nodes (see ) or that have a large number of clients requiring separate V(irtual) addresses. For example large SDN controllers with container modular software architecture (see ).In the Vlong addressing sub-scheme, the ACP address in the certificate has all V field bits as zero. The ACP address set for the node includes any V value.Before further addressing sub-schemes are defined, experience with the schemes defined here should be collected. The schemes defined in this document have been devised to allow hopefully sufficiently flexible setup of ACPs for a variety of situation. These reasons also lead to the fairly liberal use of address space: The Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme is intended to enable optimized routing in large networks by reserving bits for Zone-ID's. The Vlong addressing sub-scheme enables the allocation of 8/16 bit of addresses inside individual ACP nodes. Both address spaces allow distributed, uncoordinated allocation of node addresses by reserving bits for the registrar-ID field in the address.IANA is asked need to assign a new "type" for each new addressing sub-scheme. With the current allocations, only 2 more schemes are possible, so the last addressing scheme MUST provide further extensions (e.g., by reserving bits from it for further extensions).The ACP address prefix is assigned to the ACP node during
enrollment/provisioning of the ACP domain certificate to the ACP node.
It is intended to persist unchanged through the lifetime of the ACP node.Because of the ACP addressing sub-schemes explained above,
ACP nodes for a single ACP domain can be enrolled by multiple distributed
and uncoordinated entities called ACP registrars. These ACP
registrars are responsible to enroll ACP domain certificates
and associated trust anchor(s) to candidate ACP nodes and are
also responsible that an ACP domain information field
is included in the ACP domain certificate.Any protocols or mechanisms may be used as ACP registrars,
as long as the resulting ACP certificate and trust anchors allow
to perform the ACP domain membership described in
with other ACP domain members, and meet the ACP addressing
requirements for its ACP domain information field as described further below in this section.An ACP registrar could be a person deciding whether to
enroll a candidate ACP node and then orchestrating the
enrollment of the ACP certificate and associated trust anchor,
using command line or web based commands on the candidate ACP node
and trust anchor to generate and sign the ACP domain certificate
and configure certificate and trust anchors onto the node.The only currently defined protocol for ACP registrars is BRSKI
(). When BRSKI
is used, the ACP nodes are called ANI nodes, and the ACP registrars
are called BRSKI or ANI registrars. The BRSKI specification does not define the
handling of the ACP domain information field because the rules
do not depend on BRSKI but apply equally to any protocols/mechanisms an
ACP registrar may use.ACP registrars MUST NOT allocate ACP address prefixes to ACP nodes
via the ACP domain information field that would collide
with the ACP address prefixes of other ACP nodes in the same ACP domain.
This includes both prefixes allocated by the same ACP registrar to
different ACP nodes as well as prefixes allocated by other ACP registrars
for the same ACP domain.For this purpose, an ACP registrar MUST have one or more unique 46 bit
identifiers called Registrar-IDs used to allocate ACP address prefixes.
The lower 46 bits of a EUI-48 MAC addresses are globally unique 46
bit identifiers, so ACP registrars with known unique EUI-48 MAC addresses
can use these as Registrar-IDs. Registrar-IDs do not need to be
globally unique but only unique across the set of ACP registrars for
an ACP domain, so other means to assign unique Registrar-IDs to
ACP registrars can be used, such as configuration on the ACP registrars.When the candidate ACP device (called Pledge in BRSKI) is to be
enrolled into an ACP domain, the ACP registrar needs to allocate
a unique ACP address to the node and ensure that the ACP certificate
gets a domain information field ()
with the appropriate information - ACP domain-name, ACP-address,
and so on. If the ACP registrar uses BRSKI, it signals the ACP
information field to the Pledge via the EST /csraddrs command
(see ,
section 5.8.2 - "EST CSR Attributes").[RFC Editor: please update reference to section 5.8.2 accordingly with latest BRSKI draft at time of publishing, or RFC]The ACP registrar selects for the candidate ACP node a unique
address prefix from an appropriate ACP addressing sub-scheme,
either a zone addressing sub-scheme prefix (see ),
or a Vlong addressing sub-scheme prefix (see ). The
assigned ACP address prefix encoded in the domain information field
of the ACP domain certificate indicates to the ACP node its ACP
address information. The sub-addressing scheme indicates the
prefix length: /127 for zone address sub-scheme, /120 or /112
for Vlong address sub-scheme. The first address of the prefix is the ACP address,
all other addresses in the prefix are for other uses by the ACP node
as described in the zone and Vlong addressing sub scheme sections.
The ACP address prefix itself is then signaled by the ACP node into
the ACP routing protocol (see ) to establish
IPv6 reachability across the ACP.The choice of addressing sub-scheme and prefix-length in the Vlong address
sub-scheme is subject to ACP registrar policy. It could be an ACP domain
wide policy, or a per ACP node or per ACP node type policy. For example,
in BRSKI, the ACP registrar is aware of the IDevID of the candidate ACP node,
which contains a serialNnumber that is typically indicating the nodes vendor
and device type and can be used to drive a policy selecting an appropriate
addressing sub-scheme for the (class of) node(s).ACP registrars SHOULD default to allocate ACP zone sub-address scheme
addresses with Subnet-ID 0. Allocation and use of zone sub-addresses
with Subnet-ID != 0 is outside the scope of this specification because
it would need to go along with rules for extending ACP routing to multiple
zones, which is outside the scope of this specification.ACP registrars that can use the IDevID of a candidate ACP device
SHOULD be able to choose the zone vs. Vlong sub-address scheme for
ACP nodes based on the serialNumber of the IDevID, for example
by the PID (Product Identifier) part which identifies the product type,
or the complete serialNumber.In a simple allocation scheme, an ACP registrar remembers persistently
across reboots for its currently used Registrar-ID and for each addressing
scheme (zone with Subnet-ID 0, Vlong with /112, Vlong with /120), the
next Node-Number available for allocation and increases it after successful
enrollment to an ACP node. In this simple allocation scheme, the ACP registrar
would not recycle ACP address prefixes from no longer used ACP nodes.When an ACP domain certificate is renewed or rekeyed via EST or other
mechanisms, the ACP address/prefix in the ACP domain information field
MUST be maintained unless security issues or violations of the unique
address assignment requirements exist or are suspected by the ACP registrar.
Even when the renewing/rekeying ACP registrar is not the same as the one
that enrolled the prior ACP certificate. See for
an example. ACP address information SHOULD also be maintained even after an ACP
certificate did expire or failed. See
and . discusses further informative
details of ACP registrars: What interactions registrars need, what
parameters they require, certificate renewal and limitations, use of sub-CAs on
registrars and centralized policy control.Once ULA address are set up all autonomic entities should run a routing protocol within the autonomic control plane context. This routing protocol distributes the ULA created in the previous section for reachability. The use of the autonomic control plane specific context eliminates the probable clash with Data-Plane routing tables and also secures the ACP from interference from the configuration mismatch or incorrect routing updates.The establishment of the routing plane and its parameters are automatic and strictly within the confines of the autonomic control plane. Therefore, no explicit configuration is required.All routing updates are automatically secured in transit as the channels of the autonomic control plane are by default secured, and this routing runs only inside the ACP.The routing protocol inside the ACP is RPL (). See for more details on the choice of RPL.RPL adjacencies are set up across all ACP channels in the same domain including all its routing subdomains. See for more details.The following is a description of the RPL profile that ACP nodes need to support by default. The format of this section is derived from draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template.
In summary, the profile chosen for RPL is one that expects a fairly
reliable network with reasonably fast links so that RPL convergence will be
triggered immediately upon recognition of link failure/recovery.
The key limitation of the chosen profile is that it is designed to not
require any Data-Plane artifacts (such as ).
While the senders/receivers of ACP packets can be legacy NOC devices
connected via ACP connect (see to the ACP,
their connectivity can be handled as non-RPL-aware leafs (or "Internet")
according to the Data-Plane architecture explained in
. This non-artifact profile
is largely driven by the desire to avoid introducing the required
Hop-by-Hop headers into the ACP forwarding plane, especially to support
devices with silicon forwarding planes that can not support insertion/removal of these headers in silicon.
In this profile choice, RPL has no Data-Plane artifacts.
A simple destination prefix based upon the routing table is used.
A consequence of supporting only a single instanceID that is containing one
Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG), the ACP will only accommodate only a single class of routing table
and cannot create optimized routing paths to accomplish latency or energy
goals.
Consider a network that has multiple NOCs in different locations. Only one
NOC will become the DODAG root. Other NOCs will have to send traffic
through the DODAG (tree) rooted in the primary NOC. Depending on topology, this can be
an annoyance from a latency point of view, but it does not represent a single
point of failure, as the DODAG will reconfigure itself when it detects data
plane forwarding failures. See for more details.
The lack of RPL Packet Information (RPI, the IPv6 header for RPL defined by ), means
that the Data-Plane will have no rank value that can be used to detect
loops. As a result, traffic may loop until the time-to-live (TTL) of the packet reaches
zero. This the same behavior as that of other IGPs that do not have the
Data-Plane options as RPL.
Since links in the ACP are assumed to be mostly reliable (or have link
layer protection against loss) and because there is no stretch
according to , loops should be
exceedingly rare though.
There are a variety of mechanisms possible in RPL to further
avoid temporary loops: DODAG Information Objects (DIOs) SHOULD be sent 2...3 times to inform children
when losing the last parent. The technique in
section 8.2.2.6. (Detaching) SHOULD be favored over that in section 8.2.2.5.,
(Poisoning) because it allows local connectivity. Nodes SHOULD select
more than one parent, at least 3 if possible, and send Destination Advertisement Objects (DAO)s to all
of then in parallel.
Additionally, failed ACP tunnels will be detected by IKEv2 Dead Peer
Detection (which can function as a replacement for a Low-power and Lossy Networks' (LLN's) Expected Transmission Count (ETX). A
failure of an ACP tunnel should signal the RPL control plane to pick a
different parent.
Single RPL instance. Default RPLInstanceID = 0.RPL Mode of Operations (MOP): MUST support mode 2 - "Storing Mode of Operations
with no multicast support". Implementations MAY support mode 3 ("... with multicast support" as that is a superset of mode 2). Note: Root indicates mode in DIO flow.Proactive, aggressive DAO state maintenance:Use K-flag in unsolicited DAO indicating change from previous
information (to require DAO-ACK).Retry such DAO DAO-RETRIES(3) times with DAO-
ACK_TIME_OUT(256ms) in between.Hopcount.Objective Function (OF): Use OF0 [RFC6552].
No use of metric containers.rank_factor: Derived from link speed:
<= 100Mbps: LOW_SPEED_FACTOR(5), else HIGH_SPEED_FACTOR(1)Global Repair: we assume stable links and ranks (metrics),
so no need to periodically rebuild DODAG. DODAG version only
incremented under catastrophic events (e.g., administrative action).Local Repair: As soon as link breakage is detected, send
No-Path DAO for all the targets that where reachable only via this link.
As soon as link repair is detected, validate if this link provides
you a better parent. If so, compute your new rank, and send new DIO
that advertises your new rank. Then send a DAO with a new path sequence
about yourself.stretch_rank: none provided ("not stretched").Data Path Validation: Not used.Trickle: Not used.Not used yet but possible because of the selected mode of operations. security not used, substituted by ACP security.Not used.Every ACP node (RPL node) announces an IPv6 prefix covering the address(es) used in the ACP node. The prefix length depends on the chosen addressing sub-scheme of the ACP address provisioned into the certificate of the ACP node, e.g., /127 for Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme or /112 or /120 for Vlong addressing sub-scheme. See for more details.Every ACP node MUST install a black hole (aka null) route for whatever ACP address space that it advertises (i.e.: the /96 or /127). This is avoid routing loops for addresses that an ACP node has not (yet) used.Administrative Preference (, 3.2.6 – to become root): Indicated in DODAGPreference field of DIO message.
Explicit configured ”root”: 0b100ACP registrar (Default): 0b011ACP-connect (non-registrar): 0b010Default: 0b001.RPI (RPL Packet Information [RFC6553]): Not used as there is only a
single instance, and data path validation is not being used.SRH (RPL Source Routing - RFC6552): Not used. Storing mode is being used.Because RPL minimizes the size of the routing and forwarding table, prefixes reachable through the same interface as the RPL root are not known on every ACP node. Therefore traffic to unknown destination addresses can only be discovered at the RPL root. The RPL root SHOULD have attach safe mechanisms to operationally discover and log such packets.Since channels are by default established between adjacent neighbors, the resulting overlay network does hop-by-hop encryption. Each node decrypts incoming traffic from the ACP, and encrypts outgoing traffic to its neighbors in the ACP. Routing is discussed in .There are no performance requirements against ACP implementations defined in this document because the performance requirements depend on the intended use case. It is expected that full autonomic node with a wide range of ASA can require high forwarding plane performance in the ACP, for example for telemetry. Implementations of ACP to solely support traditional/SDN style use cases can benefit from ACP at lower performance, especially if the ACP is used only for critical operations, e.g., when the Data-Plane is not available. The design of the ACP as specified in this document is intended to support a wide range of performance options: It is intended to allow software-only implementations at potentially low performance, but can also support high performance options. See for more details.In order to be independent of the Data-Plane (routing and addressing)
the GRASP discovered (autonomic) ACP secure channels use IPv6 link local addresses between
adjacent neighbors. Note: specifies
extensions in which secure channels are configured tunnels operating over
the Data-Plane, so those secure channels can not be independent of the
Data-Plane.To avoid that Data-Plane configuration can impact the operations of the
IPv6 (link-local) interface/address used for ACP channels, appropriate
implementation considerations are required. If the IPv6 interface/link-local
address is shared with the Data-Plane it needs to be impossible to unconfigure/disable
it through configuration. Instead of sharing the IPv6 interface/link-local
address, a separate (virtual) interface with a separate IPv6 link-local
addresss can be used. For example, the ACP interface could be run over a separate
MAC addres of an underlying L2 (Ethernet) interface. For more details and options,
see .Note that other (non-ideal) implementation choices may introduce additional undesired
dependencies against the Data-Plane. For example shared code and configuration
of the secure channel protocols (IPsec / DTLS).The MTU for ACP secure channels must be derived locally from the underlying link MTU minus the secure channel encapsulation overhead.ACP secure Channel protocols do not need to perform MTU discovery because they are built across L2 adjacencies - the MTU on both sides connecting to the L2 connection are assumed to be consistent. Extensions to ACP where the ACP is for example tunneled need to consider how to guarantee MTU consistency. This is an issue of tunnels, not an issue of running the ACP across a tunnel. Transport stacks running across ACP can perform normal PMTUD (Path MTU Discovery). Because the ACP is meant to be prioritize reliability over performance, they MAY opt to only expect IPv6 minimum MTU (1280) to avoid running into PMTUD implementation bugs or underlying link MTU mismatch problems.If two nodes are connected via several links, the ACP SHOULD be established across every link, but it is possible to establish the ACP only on a sub-set of links. Having an ACP channel on every link has a number of advantages, for example it allows for a faster failover in case of link failure, and it reflects the physical topology more closely. Using a subset of links (for example, a single link), reduces resource consumption on the node, because state needs to be kept per ACP channel. The negotiation scheme explained in allows Alice (the node with the higher ACP address) to drop all but the desired ACP channels to Bob - and Bob will not re-try to build these secure channels from his side unless Alice shows up with a previously unknown GRASP announcement (e.g., on a different link or with a different address announced in GRASP).The ACP VRF has conceptually two type of interfaces: The "ACP Loopback
interface(s)" to which the ACP ULA address(es) are assigned and the
"ACP virtual interfaces" that are mapped to the ACP secure channels.The term "Loopback interface" was introduced initially to refer to an
internal interface on a node that would allow IP traffic between
transport endpoints on the node in the absence or failure of any or all external interfaces,
see section 2.5.3.Even though Loopback interfaces were originally designed to hold only
Loopback addresses not reachable from outside the node, these interfaces
are also commonly used today to hold addresses reachable from the outside.
They are meant to be reachable independent of any external interface being
operational, and therefore to be more resilient. These addresses on
Loopback interfaces can be thought of as "node addresses" instead of "interface addresses",
and that is what ACP address(es) are. This construct makes it therefore possible
to address ACP nodes with a well-defined set of addresses independent of the number of
external interfaces.For these reason, the ACP (ULA) address(es) are assigned to Loopback interface(s).Any type of ACP secure channels to another ACP node can
be mapped to ACP virtual interfaces in tollowing ways.
This is independent of the choosen secure channel protocol (IPsec, DTLS
or other future protocol - standards or non-standards):ACP point-to-point virtual interface:Each ACP secure channel is
mapped into a separate point-to-point ACP virtual interface. If a
physical subnet has more than two ACP capable nodes (in the same domain),
this implementation approach will lead to a full mesh of ACP virtual
interfaces between them.ACP multi-access virtual interface:In a more advanced implementation approach,
the ACP will construct a single multi-access ACP virtual interface for
all ACP secure channels to ACP capable nodes reachable across the same
underlying (physical) subnet. IPv6 link-local multicast packets
sent into an ACP multi-access virtual interface are replicated to
every ACP secure channel mapped into the ACP multicast-access virtual
interface. IPv6 unicast packets sent into an ACP multi-access virtual
interface are sent to the ACP secure channel that belongs to the
ACP neighbor that is the next-hop in the ACP forwarding table entry
used to reach the packets destination address.There is no requirement for
all ACP nodes on the same multi-access subnet to use the same
type of ACP virtual interface. This is purely a node local
decision.ACP nodes MUST perform standard IPv6 operations across ACP
virtual interfaces including SLAAC (Stateless Address Auto-Configuration)
- ) to assign their IPv6 link local address on the ACP
virtual interface and ND (Neighbor Discovery - )
to discover which IPv6 link-local neighbor address belongs to
which ACP secure channel mapped to the ACP virtual interface.
This is independent of whether the ACP virtual interface is point-to-point or multi-access."Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)" according to
is RECOMMENDED because the likelihood for
duplicates between ACP nodes is highly improbable as long as
the address can be formed from a globally unique local assigned identifier
(e.g., EUI-48/EUI-64, see below).ACP nodes MAY reduce the amount of link-local IPv6 multicast
packets from ND by learning the IPv6 link-local neighbor address
to ACP secure channel mapping from other messages such as the source
address of IPv6 link-local multicast RPL messages - and therefore
forego the need to send Neighbor Solicitation messages.The ACP virtual interface IPv6 link local address can be derived from
any appropriate local mechanism such as node local EUI-48 or EUI-64
("EUI" stands for "Extended Unique Identifier").
It MUST NOT depend on something that is attackable from the Data-Plane such
as the IPv6 link-local address of the underlying physical interface, which
can be attacked by SLAAC, or parameters of the secure channel encapsulation header
that may not be protected by the secure channel mechanism.The link-layer address of an ACP virtual interface is the
address used for the underlying interface across which the secure
tunnels are built, typically Ethernet addresses. Because unicast IPv6
packets sent to an ACP virtual interface are not sent to a link-layer
destination address but rather an ACP secure channel,
the link-layer address fields SHOULD be ignored on reception and
instead the ACP secure channel from which the message was
received should be remembered.Multi-access ACP virtual interfaces are preferable implementations
when the underlying interface is a (broadcast) multi-access subnet because they do
reflect the presence of the underlying multi-access subnet into the virtual
interfaces of the ACP. This makes it for example simpler to build services
with topology awareness inside the ACP VRF in the same way as they could
have been built running natively on the multi-access interfaces.Consider also the impact of point-to-point vs. multi-access virtual interface
on the efficiency of flooding via link local multicasted messages:Assume a LAN with three ACP neighbors, Alice, Bob and Carol.
Alice's ACP GRASP wants to send a link-local GRASP multicast message to
Bob and Carol. If Alice's ACP emulates the LAN as one point-to-point
virtual interface to Bob and one to Carol, The sending applications itself will
send two copies, if Alice's ACP emulates a LAN, GRASP will send one packet
and the ACP will replicate it. The result is the same. The difference
happens when Bob and Carol receive their packet. If they use ACP point-to-point
virtual interfaces, their GRASP instance would forward the packet
from Alice to each other as part of the GRASP flooding procedure.
These packets are unnecessary and would be discarded by GRASP
on receipt as duplicates (by use of the GRASP Session ID).
If Bob and Charly's ACP would emulate a multi-access
virtual interface, then this would not happen, because GRASPs flooding procedure
does not replicate back packets to the interface that they were received from.Note that link-local GRASP multicast messages are not sent
directly as IPv6 link-local multicast UDP messages into ACP virtual interfaces,
but instead into ACP GRASP virtual interfaces, that are layered on top of
ACP virtual interfaces to add TCP reliability to link-local multicast
GRASP messages. Nevertheless, these ACP GRASP virtual interfaces perform the
same replication of message and, therefore, result in the same impact on flooding.
See for more details.RPL does support operations and correct routing table construction
across non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA) subnets. This is common when using many
radio technologies. When such NBMA subnets are used, they MUST NOT be
represented as ACP multi-access virtual interfaces because the replication
of IPv6 link-local multicast messages will not reach all
NBMA subnet neighbors. In result, GRASP message flooding would fail.
Instead, each ACP secure channel across such an interface MUST be
represented as a ACP point-to-point virtual interface. See also .Care must also be taken when creating multi-access ACP virtual
interfaces across ACP secure channels between ACP nodes in different domains
or routing subdomains. The policies to be negotiated may be described as
peer-to-peer policies in which case it is easier to create ACP point-to-point
virtual interfaces for these secure channels.
ANrtr1 ------ ANswitch1 --- ANswitch2 ------- ANrtr2
.../ \ \ ...
ANrtrM ------ \ ------- ANrtrN
ANswitchM ...
Consider a large L2 LAN with ANrtr1...ANrtrN connected via some topology of L2 switches.
Examples include large enterprise campus networks with an L2 core, IoT networks or broadband
aggregation networks which often have even a multi-level L2 switched topology.If the discovery protocol used for the ACP is operating at the subnet level, every ACP router
will see all other ACP routers on the LAN as neighbors and a full mesh of ACP channels will be built.
If some or all of the AN switches are autonomic with the same discovery protocol, then the
full mesh would include those switches as well.A full mesh of ACP connections can create fundamental scale challenges. The number of
security associations of the secure channel protocols will likely not scale arbitrarily,
especially when they leverage platform accelerated encryption/decryption. Likewise, any
other ACP operations (such as routing) needs to scale to the number of direct ACP neighbors. An
ACP router with just 4 physical interfaces might be deployed into a LAN with hundreds of neighbors connected
via switches. Introducing such a new unpredictable scaling factor requirement makes it harder
to support the ACP on arbitrary platforms and in arbitrary deployments.Predictable scaling requirements for ACP neighbors can most easily be achieved if in
topologies such as these, ACP capable L2 switches can ensure that discovery messages terminate
on them so that neighboring ACP routers and switches will only find the physically connected
ACP L2 switches as their candidate ACP neighbors. With such a discovery mechanism in place, the
ACP and its security associations will only need to scale to the number of physical interfaces
instead of a potentially much larger number of "LAN-connected" neighbors. And the ACP topology
will follow directly the physical topology, something which can then also be leveraged
in management operations or by ASAs.In the example above, consider ANswitch1 and ANswitchM are ACP capable, and ANswitch2
is not ACP capable. The desired ACP topology is that ANrtr1 and ANrtrM only have an
ACP connection to ANswitch1, and that ANswitch1, ANrtr2, ANrtrN have a full mesh of ACP
connection amongst each other. ANswitch1 also has an ACP connection with ANswitchM and
ANswitchM has ACP connections to anything else behind it.To support ACP on L2 switches or L2 switched ports of an L3 device, it is necessary to
make those L2 ports look like L3 interfaces for the ACP implementation. This primarily involves
the creation of a separate DULL GRASP instance/domain on every such L2 port. Because GRASP
has a dedicated link-local IPv6 multicast address (ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS), it is sufficient that all packets
for this address are being extracted at the port level and passed to that DULL GRASP instance.
Likewise the IPv6 link-local multicast packets sent by that DULL GRASP instance need to be
sent only towards the L2 port for this DULL GRASP instance.If the device with L2 ports is supporting per L2 port ACP DULL GRASP as well as MLD snooping
(), then MLD snooping must be changed to never forward packets for
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS because that would cause the problem that per L2 port ACP DULL GRASP
is meant to overcome (forwarding DULL GRASP packets across L2 ports).The rest of ACP operations can operate in the same way as in L3 devices: Assume for example
that the device is an L3/L2 hybrid device where L3 interfaces are assigned to VLANs and
each VLAN has potentially multiple ports. DULL GRASP is run as described individually on each L2 port.
When it discovers a candidate ACP neighbor, it passes its IPv6 link-local address and supported
secure channel protocols to the ACP secure channel negotiation that can be bound to the L3 (VLAN)
interface. It will simply use link-local IPv6 multicast packets to the candidate ACP neighbor.
Once a secure channel is established to such a neighbor, the virtual interface to which
this secure channel is mapped should then actually be the L2 port and not the L3 interface
to best map the actual physical topology into the ACP virtual interfaces. See
for more details about how to map secure channels into ACP virtual interfaces. Note that a
single L2 port can still have multiple ACP neighbors if it connect for example to multiple
ACP neighbors via a non-ACP enabled switch. The per L2 port ACP virtual interface
can therefore still be a multi-access virtual LAN.For example, in the above picture, ANswitch1 would run separate DULL GRASP instances on its ports
to ANrtr1, ANswitch2 and ANswitchI, even though all those three ports may be in the data
plane in the same (V)LAN and perform L2 switching between these ports, ANswitch1 would perform
ACP L3 routing between them.The description in the previous paragraph was specifically meant to illustrate that on hybrid
L3/L2 devices that are common in enterprise, IoT and broadband aggregation, there is only
the GRASP packet extraction (by Ethernet address) and GRASP link-local multicast per
L2-port packet injection that has to consider L2 ports at the hardware forwarding level.
The remaining operations are purely ACP control plane and setup of secure channels across the
L3 interface. This hopefully makes support for per-L2 port ACP on those hybrid devices easy.This L2/L3 optimized approach is subject to "address stealing", e.g., where a device on
one port uses addresses of a device on another port. This is a generic issue in L2 LANs
and switches often already have some form of "port security" to prohibit this. They rely on
NDP or DHCP learning of which port/MAC-address and IPv6 address belong together and block
duplicates. This type of function needs to be enabled to prohibit DoS attacks.
Likewise the GRASP DULL instance needs to ensure that the IPv6 address in the locator-option
matches the source IPv6 address of the DULL GRASP packet.In devices without such a mix of L2 port/interfaces and L3 interfaces (to terminate any
transport layer connections), implementation details will differ. Logically most simply every
L2 port is considered and used as a separate L3 subnet for all ACP operations. The fact that
the ACP only requires IPv6 link-local unicast and multicast should make support for it on any
type of L2 devices as simple as possible.A generic issue with ACP in L2 switched networks is the interaction with the Spanning Tree
Protocol. Ideally, the ACP should be built also across ports that are blocked in STP so
that the ACP does not depend on STP and can continue to run unaffected across STP topology
changes (where re-convergence can be quite slow). The above described simple implementation
options are not sufficient for this. Instead they would simply have the ACP run across
the active STP topology and the ACP would equally be interrupted and re-converge
with STP changes.The Autonomic Control Plane can be used by management systems, such as controllers or network management system (NMS) hosts (henceforth called simply "NMS hosts"), to connect to devices (or other type of nodes) through it. For this, an NMS host must have access to the ACP. The ACP is a self-protecting overlay network, which allows by default access only to trusted, autonomic systems. Therefore, a traditional, non-ACP NMS system does not have access to the ACP by default, such as any other external node.If the NMS host is not autonomic, i.e., it does not support autonomic negotiation of the ACP, then it can be brought into the ACP by explicit configuration. To support connections to adjacent non-ACP nodes, an ACP node must support "ACP connect" (sometimes also called "autonomic connect"):"ACP connect" is a function on an autonomic node that is called an "ACP edge node". With "ACP connect", interfaces on the node can be configured to be put into the ACP VRF. The ACP is then accessible to other (NOC) systems on such an interface without those systems having to support any ACP discovery or ACP channel setup. This is also called "native" access to the ACP because to those (NOC) systems the interface looks like a normal network interface (without any encryption/novel-signaling).
Data-Plane "native" (no ACP)
.
+--------+ +----------------+ . +-------------+
| ACP | |ACP Edge Node | . | |
| Node | | | v | |
| |-------|...[ACP VRF]....+-----------------| |+
| | ^ |. | | NOC Device ||
| | . | .[Data-Plane]..+-----------------| "NMS hosts" ||
| | . | [ ] | . ^ | ||
+--------+ . +----------------+ . . +-------------+|
. . . +-------------+
. . .
Data-Plane "native" . ACP "native" (unencrypted)
+ ACP auto-negotiated . "ACP connect subnet"
and encrypted .
ACP connect interface
e.g., "VRF ACP native" (config)
ACP connect has security consequences: All systems and processes connected via ACP connect have access to all ACP nodes on the entire ACP, without further authentication. Thus, the ACP connect interface and (NOC) systems connected to it must be physically controlled/secured. For this reason the mechanisms described here do explicitly not include options to allow for a non-ACP router to be connected across an ACP connect interface and addresses behind such a router routed inside the ACP.An ACP connect interface provides exclusively access to only the ACP. This is likely insufficient for many NMS hosts. Instead, they would require a second "Data-Plane" interface outside the ACP for connections between the NMS host and administrators, or Internet based services, or for direct access to the Data-Plane. The document "Using Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM" explains in more detail how the ACP can be integrated in a mixed NOC environment.The ACP connect interface must be (auto-)configured with an IPv6 address prefix. Is prefix SHOULD be covered by one of the (ULA) prefix(es) used in the ACP. If using non-autonomic configuration, it SHOULD use the ACP Manual Addressing Sub-Scheme (). It SHOULD NOT use a prefix that is also routed outside the ACP so that the addresses clearly indicate whether it is used inside the ACP or not.The prefix of ACP connect subnets MUST be distributed by the ACP edge node into the ACP routing protocol (RPL). The NMS hosts MUST connect to prefixes in the ACP routing table via its ACP connect interface. In the simple case where the ACP uses only one ULA prefix and all ACP connect subnets have prefixes covered by that ULA prefix, NMS hosts can rely on - The NMS host will select the ACP connect interface because any ACP destination address is best matched by the address on the ACP connect interface. If the NMS hosts ACP connect interface uses another prefix or if the ACP uses multiple ULA prefixes, then the NMS hosts require (static) routes towards the ACP interface.ACP Edge Nodes MUST only forward IPv6 packets received from an ACP connect interface
into the ACP that has an IPv6 address from the ACP prefix assigned to this interface (sometimes called "RPF filtering"). This MAY be changed through administrative measures.To limit the security impact of ACP connect, nodes supporting it SHOULD implement a security
mechanism to allow configuration/use of ACP connect interfaces only on nodes explicitly targeted
to be deployed with it (those in physically secure locations such as a NOC). For example,
the registrar could disable the ability to enable ACP connect on devices during enrollment
and that property could only be changed through re-enrollment. See also .The ACP connect mechanism be only be used to connect physically external systems (NMS hosts) to the ACP but also other applications, containers or virtual machines. In fact, one possible way to eliminate the security issue of the external ACP connect interface is to collocate an ACP edge node and an NMS host by making one a virtual machine or container inside the other; and therefore converting the unprotected external ACP subnet into an internal virtual subnet in a single device. This would ultimately result in a fully ACP enabled NMS host with minimum impact to the NMS hosts software architecture. This approach is not limited to NMS hosts but could equally be applied to devices consisting of one or more VNF (virtual network functions): An internal virtual subnet connecting out-of-band management interfaces of the VNFs to an ACP edge router VNF.The core requirement is that the software components need to have a network stack that permits access to the ACP and optionally also the Data-Plane. Like in the physical setup for NMS hosts this can be realized via two internal virtual subnets. One that is connecting to the ACP (which could be a container or virtual machine by itself), and one (or more) connecting into the Data-Plane.This "internal" use of ACP connect approach should not considered to be a "workaround" because in this case it is possible to build a correct security model: It is not necessary to rely on unprovable external physical security mechanisms as in the case of external NMS hosts. Instead, the orchestration of the ACP, the virtual subnets and the software components can be done by trusted software that could be considered to be part of the ANI (or even an extended ACP). This software component is responsible for ensuring that only trusted software components will get access to that virtual subnet and that only even more trusted software components will get access to both the ACP virtual subnet and the Data-Plane (because those ACP users could leak traffic between ACP and Data-Plane). This trust could be established for example through cryptographic means such as signed software packages.ACP edge nodes, NMS hosts and software components that as described in the previous section are meant to be composed via virtual interfaces SHOULD support on the ACP connect subnet StateLess Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC - ) and route auto configuration according to .The ACP edge node acts as the router on the ACP connect subnet, providing the (auto-)configured prefix for the ACP connect subnet to NMS hosts and/or software components. The ACP edge node uses route prefix option of RFC4191 to announce the default route (::/) with a lifetime of 0 and aggregated prefixes for routes in the ACP routing table with normal lifetimes. This will ensure that the ACP edge node does not become a default router, but that the NMS hosts and software components will route the prefixes used in the ACP to the ACP edge node.Aggregated prefix means that the ACP edge node needs to only announce the /48 ULA prefixes used in the ACP but none of the actual /64 (Manual Addressing Sub-Scheme), /127 (ACP Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme), /112 or /120 (Vlong Addressing Sub-Scheme) routes of actual ACP nodes. If ACP interfaces are configured with non ULA prefixes, then those prefixes cannot be aggregated without further configured policy on the ACP edge node. This explains the above recommendation to use ACP ULA prefix covered prefixes for ACP connect interfaces: They allow for a shorter list of prefixes to be signaled via RFC4191 to NMS hosts and software components.The ACP edge nodes that have a Vlong ACP address MAY allocate a subset of their /112 or /120 address prefix to ACP connect interface(s) to eliminate the need to non-autonomically configure/provision the address prefixes for such ACP connect interfaces.
Combined ACP and Data-Plane interface
.
+--------+ +--------------------+ . +--------------+
| ACP | |ACP Edge No | . | NMS Host(s) |
| Node | | | . | / Software |
| | | [ACP ]. | . | |+
| | | .[VRF ] .[VRF ] | v | "ACP address"||
| +-------+. .[Select].+--------+ "Date Plane ||
| | ^ | .[Data ]. | | Address(es)"||
| | . | [Plane] | | ||
| | . | [ ] | +--------------+|
+--------+ . +--------------------+ +--------------+
.
Data-Plane "native" and + ACP auto-negotiated/encrypted
Using two physical and/or virtual subnets (and therefore interfaces) into NMS Hosts (as per ) or Software (as per ) may be seen as additional complexity, for example with legacy NMS Hosts that support only one IP interface.To provide a single subnet into both ACP and Data-Plane, the ACP Edge node needs to de-multiplex packets from NMS hosts into ACP VRF and Data-Plane. This is sometimes called "VRF select". If the ACP VRF has no overlapping IPv6 addresses with the Data-Plane (as it should), then this function can use the IPv6 Destination address. The problem is Source Address Selection on the NMS Host(s) according to RFC6724.Consider the simple case: The ACP uses only one ULA prefix, the ACP IPv6 prefix for the Combined ACP and Data-Plane interface is covered by that ULA prefix. The ACP edge node announces both the ACP IPv6 prefix and one (or more) prefixes for the Data-Plane. Without further policy configurations on the NMS Host(s), it may select its ACP address as a source address for Data-Plane ULA destinations because of Rule 8 of RFC6724. The ACP edge node can pass on the packet to the Data-Plane, but the ACP source address should not be used for Data-Plane traffic, and return traffic may fail.If the ACP carries multiple ULA prefixes or non-ULA ACP connect prefixes, then the correct source address selection becomes even more problematic.With separate ACP connect and Data-Plane subnets and RFC4191 prefix announcements that are to be routed across the ACP connect interface, RFC6724 source address selection Rule 5 (use address of outgoing interface) will be used, so that above problems do not occur, even in more complex cases of multiple ULA and non-ULA prefixes in the ACP routing table.To achieve the same behavior with a Combined ACP and Data-Plane interface, the ACP Edge Node needs to behave as two separate routers on the interface: One link-local IPv6 address/router for its ACP reachability, and one link-local IPv6 address/router for its Data-Plane reachability. The Router Advertisements for both are as described above (): For the ACP, the ACP prefix is announced together with RFC4191 option for the prefixes routed across the ACP and lifetime=0 to disqualify this next-hop as a default router. For the Data-Plane, the Data-Plane prefix(es) are announced together with whatever dafault router parameters are used for the Data-Plane.In result, RFC6724 source address selection Rule 5.5 may result in the same correct source address selection behavior of NMS hosts without further configuration on it as the separate ACP connect and Data-Plane interfaces. As described in the text for Rule 5.5, this is only a may, because IPv6 hosts are not required to track next-hop information. If an NMS Host does not do this, then separate ACP connect and Data-Plane interfaces are the preferable method of attachment. Hosts implementing should (instead of may) implement Rule 5.5, so it is preferred for hosts to support .ACP edge nodes MAY support the Combined ACP and Data-Plane interface.GRASP can and should be possible to use across ACP connect interfaces, especially in
the architectural correct solution when it is used as a mechanism to connect Software
(e.g., ASA or legacy NMS applications) to the ACP. Given how the ACP is the security
and transport substrate for GRASP, the trustworthiness of nodes/software allowed
to participate in the ACP GRASP domain is one of the main reasons why the ACP section
describes no solution with non-ACP routers participating in the ACP routing table.ACP connect interfaces can be dealt with in the GRASP ACP domain the same as any
other ACP interface assuming that any physical ACP connect interface is physically
protected from attacks and that the connected Software or NMS Hosts are equally
trusted as that on other ACP nodes. ACP edge nodes SHOULD have options to
filter GRASP messages in and out of ACP connect interfaces (permit/deny) and
MAY have more fine-grained filtering (e.g., based on IPv6 address of originator or
objective).When using "Combined ACP and Data-Plane Interfaces", care must be taken that
only GRASP messages intended for the ACP GRASP domain received from Software or
NMS Hosts are forwarded by ACP edge nodes. Currently there is no definition for
a GRASP security and transport substrate beside the ACP, so there is no definition
how such Software/NMS Host could participate in two separate GRASP Domains across
the same subnet (ACP and Data-Plane domains). At current it is assumed that
all GRASP packets on a Combined ACP and Data-Plane interface belong to the GRASP ACP Domain.
They must all use the ACP IPv6 addresses of the Software/NMS Hosts. The link-local
IPv6 addresses of Software/NMS Hosts (used for GRASP M_DISCOVERY and M_FLOOD messages)
are also assumed to belong to the ACP address space.Not all nodes in a network may support the ACP. If non-ACP Layer-2 devices are between ACP nodes, the ACP will work across it since it is IP based. However, the autonomic discovery of ACP neighbors via DULL GRASP is only intended to work across L2 connections, so it is not sufficient to autonomically create ACP connections across non-ACP Layer-3 devices.On the ACP node, remote ACP neighbors are configured explicitly.
The parameters of such a "connection" are described in the following ABNF.Explicit configuration of a remote-peer according to this
ABNF provides all the information to build a secure channel without requiring a tunnel
to that peer and running DULL GRASP inside of it.The configuration includes the parameters otherwise signaled
via DULL GRASP: local address, remote (peer) locator and
method. The differences over DULL GRASP local neighbor
discovery and secure channel creation are as follows:The local and remote address can be IPv4 or IPv6 and are typically global scope addresses.The VRF across which the connection is built (and in which local-addr exists) can to be specified. If vrf is not specified, it is the default VRF on the node. In DULL GRASP the VRF is implied by the interface across which DULL GRASP operates.If local address is "any", the local address used when initiating a secure channel connection is decided by source address selection ( for IPv6). As a responder, the connection listens on all addresses of the node in the selected VRF.Configuration of port is only required for methods where no defaults exist (e.g., "DTLS").If remote address is "any", the connection is only a responder. It is a "hub" that can be used by multiple remote peers to connect simultaneously - without having to know or configure their addresses. Example: Hub site for remote "spoke" sites reachable over the Internet.Pmtu should be configurable to overcome issues/limitations of Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD).IKEv2/IPsec to remote peers should support the optional NAT Traversal (NAT-T) procedures.An IPinIP, GRE or other form of pre-existing tunnel is configured
between two remote ACP peers and the virtual interfaces representing
the tunnel are configured to "ACP enable". This will enable IPv6
link local addresses and DULL on this tunnel. In result, the tunnel
is used for normal "L2 adjacent" candidate ACP neighbor discovery
with DULL and secure channel setup procedures described in this document.Tunneled Remote ACP Neighbor requires two encapsulations:
the configured tunnel and the secure channel inside of that tunnel.
This makes it in general less desirable than Configured Remote ACP Neighbor.
Benefits of tunnels are that it may be easier to implement because
there is no change to the ACP functionality - just running it over
a virtual (tunnel) interface instead of only native interfaces.
The tunnel itself may also provide PMTUD while the secure channel
method may not. Or the tunnel mechanism is permitted/possible through some
firewall while the secure channel method may not.Configured/Tunneled Remote ACP neighbors are less "indestructible"
than L2 adjacent ACP neighbors based on link local addressing, since
they depend on more correct Data-Plane operations, such as routing and global addressing.Nevertheless, these options may be crucial to incrementally deploy
the ACP, especially if it is meant to connect islands across the Internet.
Implementations SHOULD support at least Tunneled Remote ACP Neighbors
via GRE tunnels - which is likely the most common router-to-router
tunneling protocol in use today.The ACP is self-healing:New neighbors will automatically join the ACP after successful validation and will become reachable using their unique ULA address across the ACP.When any changes happen in the topology, the routing protocol used in the ACP will automatically adapt to the changes and will continue to provide reachability to all nodes.If the domain certificate of an existing ACP node gets revoked, it will automatically be denied access to the ACP as its domain certificate will be validated against a Certificate Revocation List during authentication. Since the revocation check is only done at the establishment of a new security association, existing ones are not automatically torn down. If an immediate disconnect is required, existing sessions to a freshly revoked node can be re-set.The ACP can also sustain network partitions and mergers. Practically all ACP operations are link local, where a network partition has no impact. Nodes authenticate each other using the domain certificates to establish the ACP locally. Addressing inside the ACP remains unchanged, and the routing protocol inside both parts of the ACP will lead to two working (although partitioned) ACPs.There are few central dependencies: A certificate revocation list (CRL) may not be available during a network partition; a suitable policy to not immediately disconnect neighbors when no CRL is available can address this issue. Also, an ACP registrar or Certificate Authority might not be available during a partition. This may delay renewal of certificates that are to expire in the future, and it may prevent the enrollment of new nodes during the partition.Highly resilient ACP designs can be built by using ACP registrars with embedded sub-CA, as outlined in . As long a a partition is left with one or more of such ACP registrars, it can continue to enroll new candidate ACP nodes as long as the ACP registrars sub-CA certificate does not expire. Because the ACP addressing relies on unique Registrar-IDs, a later re-merge of partitions will also not cause problems with ACP addresses assigned during partitioning.After a network partition, a re-merge will just establish the previous status, certificates can be renewed, the CRL is available, and new nodes can be enrolled everywhere. Since all nodes use the same trust anchor, a re-merge will be smooth.Merging two networks with different trust anchors requires the trust anchors to mutually trust each other (for example, by cross-signing). As long as the domain names are different, the addressing will not overlap (see ).It is also highly desirable for implementation of the ACP to be able to run it over interfaces that are administratively down. If this is not feasible, then it might instead be possible to request explicit operator override upon administrative actions that would administratively bring down an interface across which the ACP is running. Especially if bringing down the ACP is known to disconnect the operator from the node. For example any such down administrative action could perform a dependency check to see if the transport connection across which this action is performed is affected by the down action (with default RPL routing used, packet forwarding will be symmetric, so this is actually possible to check).As explained in , the ACP is based on secure channels built between nodes that have mutually authenticated each other with their domain certificates. The channels themselves are protected using standard encryption technologies such as DTLS or IPsec which provide additional authentication during channel establishment, data integrity and data confidentiality protection of data inside the ACP and in addition, provide replay protection.An attacker will not be able to join the ACP unless having a valid domain certificate, also packet injection and sniffing traffic will not be possible due to the security provided by the encryption protocol.The ACP also serves as protection (through authentication and encryption) for protocols relevant to OAM that may not have secured protocol stack options or where implementation or deployment of those options fails on some vendor/product/customer limitations. This includes protocols such as SNMP, NTP/PTP, DNS, DHCP, syslog, Radius/Diameter/TACACS, IPFIX/Netflow - just to name a few. Protection via the ACP secure hop-by-hop channels for these protocols is meant to be only a stopgap though: The ultimate goal is for these and other protocols to use end-to-end encryption utilizing the domain certificate and rely on the ACP secure channels primarily for zero-touch reliable connectivity, but not primarily for security.The remaining attack vector would be to attack the underlying ACP protocols themselves, either via directed attacks or by denial-of-service attacks. However, as the ACP is built using link-local IPv6 address, remote attacks are impossible. The ULA addresses are only reachable inside the ACP context, therefore, unreachable from the Data-Plane. Also, the ACP protocols should be implemented to be attack resistant and not consume unnecessary resources even while under attack.The security model of the ACP is based on trusting all members of the group of nodes
that do receive an ACP domain certificate for the same domain. Attacks from the inside by
a compromised group member are therefore the biggest challenge.Group members must be protected against attackers so that there is no easy way to compromise them,
or use them as a proxy for attacking other devices across the ACP. For example, management plane
functions (transport ports) should only be reachable from the ACP but not the Data-Plane.
Especially for those management plane functions that have no good protection by themselves because they
do not have secure end-to-end transport and to whom ACP does not only provides automatic reliable
connectivity but also protection against attacks. Protection across all potential
attack vectors is typically easier to do in devices whose software is designed from the ground up with
security in mind than with legacy software based systems where the ACP is added on as another feature.As explained above, traffic across the ACP SHOULD still be end-to-end encrypted whenever
possible. This includes traffic such as GRASP, EST and BRSKI inside the ACP. This minimizes
man in the middle attacks by compromised ACP group members. Such attackers cannot eavesdrop
or modify communications, they can just filter them (which is unavoidable by any means).An ACP is self-forming, self-managing and self-protecting, therefore has minimal dependencies on the administrator of the network. Specifically, since it is independent of configuration, there is no scope for configuration errors on the ACP itself. The administrator may have the option to enable or disable the entire approach, but detailed configuration is not possible. This means that the ACP must not be reflected in the running configuration of nodes, except a possible on/off switch.While configuration is not possible, an administrator must have full visibility of the ACP and all its parameters, to be able to do trouble-shooting. Therefore, an ACP must support all show and debug options, as for any other network function. Specifically, a network management system or controller must be able to discover the ACP, and monitor its health. This visibility of ACP operations must clearly be separated from visibility of Data-Plane so automated systems will never have to deal with ACP aspect unless they explicitly desire to do so.Since an ACP is self-protecting, a node not supporting the ACP, or without a valid domain certificate cannot connect to it. This means that by default a traditional controller or network management system cannot connect to an ACP. See for more details on how to connect an NMS host into the ACP.The following sections document important operational aspects of the ACP. They are not normative because they do not impact the interoperability between components of the ACP, but they include recommendations/requirements for the internal operational model beneficial or necessary to achieve the desired use-case benefits of the ACP (see ). describes recommended operator diagnostics capabilities of ACP nodes. The have been derived from diagnostic of a commercially available ACP implementation. describes high level how an ACP registrar needs to work, what its configuration parameters are and specific issues impacting the choices of deployment design due to renewal and revocation issues. It describes a model where ACP Registrars have their own sub-CA to provide the most disributed deployment option for ACP Registrars, and it describes considerations for centralized policy control of ACP Registrar operations. describes suggested ACP node behavior and operational interfaces (configuration options) to manage the ACP in so-called greenfield devices (previously unconfigured) and brownfield devices (preconfigured).The recommendations and suggestions of this chapter were derived from operational experience gained with a commercially available pre-standard ACP implementation.Even though ACP and ANI in general are taking out many manual configuration mistakes
through their automation, it is important to provide good diagnostics for them.The basic diagnostics is support of (yang) data models representing the
complete (auto-)configuration and operational state of all components: BRSKI, GRASP,
ACP and the infrastructure used by them: TLS/DTLS, IPsec, certificates, trust anchors, time,
VRF and so on. While necessary, this is not sufficient:Simply representing the state of components does not allow operators to quickly take
action - unless they do understand how to interpret the data, and that can mean a
requirement for deep understanding of all components and how they interact in the ACP/ANI.Diagnostic supports should help to quickly answer the questions operators
are expected to ask, such as "is the ACP working correctly?", or "why is there no
ACP connection to a known neighboring node?"In current network management approaches, the logic to answer these
questions is most often built as centralized diagnostics software that leverages
the above mentioned data models. While this approach is feasible for components
utilizing the ANI, it is not sufficient to diagnose the ANI itself:Developing the logic to identify common issues requires operational experience
with the components of the ANI. Letting each management system define its
own analysis is inefficient.When the ANI is not operating correctly, it may not be possible to run diagnostics
from remote because of missing connectivity. The ANI should therefore have diagnostic
capabilities available locally on the nodes themselves.Certain operations are difficult or impossible to monitor in real-time, such as
initial bootstrap issues in a network location where no capabilities exist to attach
local diagnostics. Therefore it is important to also define means of capturing (logging)
diagnostics locally for later retrieval. Ideally, these captures are also non-volatile so
that they can survive extended power-off conditions - for example when a device
that fails to be brought up zero-touch is being sent back for diagnostics at a
more appropriate location.The most simple form of diagnostics answering questions such as the above
is to represent the relevant information sequentially in dependency order,
so that the first non-expected/non-operational item is the most likely root
cause. Or just log/highlight that item. For example:Q: Is ACP operational to accept neighbor connections:
Check if any potentially necessary configuration to make ACP/ANI operational are correct (see for a discussion of such commands).Does the system time look reasonable, or could it be the default system time after clock chip battery failure (certificate checks depend on reasonable notion of time).Does the node have keying material - domain certificate, trust anchors.If no keying material and ANI is supported/enabled,
check the state of BRSKI (not detailed in this example).Check the validity of the domain certificate:
Does the certificate authenticate against the trust anchor?Has it been revoked?Was the last scheduled attempt to retrieve a CRL successful (e.g., do we know that our CRL information is up to date).Is the certificate valid: validity start time in the past, expiration time in the future?Does the certificate have a correctly formatted ACP information field?Was the ACP VRF successfully created?Is ACP enabled on one or more interfaces that are up and running?If all this looks good, the ACP should be running locally "fine" - but we did not check any ACP neighbor relationships.Question: why does the node not create a working ACP connection to a neighbor on an interface?
Is the interface physically up? Does it have an IPv6 link-local address?Is it enabled for ACP?Do we successfully send DULL GRASP messages to the interface (link layer errors)?Do we receive DULL GRASP messages on the interface? If not, some intervening L2 equipment performing bad MLD snooping could have caused problems. Provide e.g., diagnostics of the MLD querier IPv6 and MAC address.Do we see the ACP objective in any DULL GRASP message from that interface? Diagnose the supported secure channel methods.Do we know the MAC address of the neighbor with the ACP objective? If not, diagnose SLAAC/ND state.When did we last attempt to build an ACP secure channel to the neighbor?If it failed, why:
Did the neighbor close the connection on us or did we close the connection on it because the domain certificate membership failed?If the neighbor closed the connection on us, provide any error diagnostics from the secure channel protocol.If we failed the attempt, display our local reason:
There was no common secure channel protocol supported by the two neighbors (this could not happen on nodes supporting this specification because it mandates common support for IPsec).The ACP domain certificate membership check () fails:
The neighbors certificate does not have the required trust anchor. Provide diagnostics which trust anchor it has (can identify whom the device belongs to).The neighbors certificate does not have the same domain (or no domain at all). Diagnose domain-name and potentially other other cert info.The neighbors certificate has been revoked or could not be authenticated by OCSP. The neighbors certificate has expired - or is not yet valid.Any other connection issues in e.g., IKEv2 / IPsec, DTLS?.Question: Is the ACP operating correctly across its secure channels?
Are there one or more active ACP neighbors with secure channels?Is the RPL routing protocol for the ACP running?Is there a default route to the root in the ACP routing table?Is there for each direct ACP neighbor not reachable over the ACP virtual interface to the root a route in the ACP routing table?Is ACP GRASP running?Is at least one SRV.est objective cached (to support certificate renewal)?Is there at least one BRSKI registrar objective cached (in case BRSKI is supported)Is BRSKI proxy operating normally on all interfaces where ACP is operating?...These lists are not necessarily complete, but illustrate the principle and show that there are variety of issues ranging from normal operational causes (a neighbor in another ACP domain) over problems in the credentials management (certificate lifetimes), explicit security actions (revocation) or unexpected connectivity issues (intervening L2 equipment).The items so far are illustrating how the ANI operations can
be diagnosed with passive observation of the operational state
of its components including historic/cached/counted events. This is
not necessary sufficient to provide good enough diagnostics overall:The components of ACP and BRSKI are designed with security in mind
but they do not attempt to provide diagnostics for building the
network itself. Consider two examples:
BRSKI does not allow for a neighboring
device to identify the pledges certificate (IDevID). Only the selected
BRSKI registrar can do this, but it may be difficult to disseminate
information about undesired pledges from those BRSKI registrars to locations/nodes
where information about those pledges is desired.The Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP, ) disseminates information about nodes to their immediate neighbors,
such as node model/type/software and interface name/number of the
connection. This information is often helpful or even necessary
in network diagnostics. It can equally considered to be too insecure
to make this information available unprotected to all possible neighbors.An "interested adjacent party" can always determine the IDevID of a BRSKI pledge
by behaving like a BRSKI proxy/registrar. Therefore the IDevID of a BRSKI pledge
is not meant to be protected - it just has to be queried and is not
signaled unsolicited (as it would be in LLDP) so that other observers
on the same subnet can determine who is an "interested adjacent party".As described in , the ACP addressing
mechanism is designed to enable lightweight, distributed and uncoordinated
ACP registrars that are providing ACP address prefixes to candidate ACP
nodes by enrolling them with an ACP domain certificate into an ACP domain via
any appropriate mechanism/protocol, automated or not.This section discusses informatively more details and options for ACP registrars.This section summarizes and discusses the interactions with other entities required
by an ACP registrar.In a simple instance of an ACP network, no central NOC component beside
a trust anchor (root CA) is required. One or more uncoordinated acting
ACP registrar can be set up, performing the following interactions:To orchestrate enrolling a candidate ACP node autonomically,
the ACP registrar can rely on the ACP and use Proxies to reach the candidate ACP node,
therefore allowing minimum pre-existing (auto-)configured network services
on the candidate ACP node. BRSKI defines the BRSKI proxy, a design that can be
adopted for various protocols that Pledges/candidate ACP nodes could want to use,
for example BRSKI over CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol), or proxying of
Netconf.To reach a trust anchor unaware of the ACP, the ACP registrar would use
the Data-Plane. ACP and Data-Plane in an ACP registrar could (and by default
should be) completely isolated from each other at the network level.
Only applications such as the ACP registrar would need the ability for
their transport stacks to access both.In non autonomic enrollment options, the Data-Plane
between a ACP registrar and the candidate ACP node needs to be configured
first. This includes the ACP registrar and the candidate ACP node.
Then any appropriate set of protocols can be used between ACP registrar and
candidate ACP node to discover the other side, and then connect
and enroll (configure) the candidate ACP node with an ACP domain certificate.
Netconf ZeroTouch ()
is an example protocol that could be used for this. BRSKI using optional
discovery mechanisms is equally a possibility for candidate ACP nodes
attempting to be enrolled across non-ACP networks, such as the Internet.When candidate ACP nodes have secure bootstrap, such as BRSKI Pledges,
they will not trust to be configured/enrolled across the network, unless
being presented with a voucher (see ) authorizing
the network to take possession of the node. An ACP registrar will then need a
method to retrieve such a voucher, either offline, or online from a MASA
(Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority). BRSKI and Netconf
ZeroTouch are two protocols that include capabilities to present the voucher
to the candidate ACP node.An ACP registrar could operate EST for ACP certificate renewal and/or
act as a CRL Distribution point. A node performing these
services does not need to support performing (initial) enrollment, but
it does require the same above described connectivity as an ACP
registrar: via the ACP to ACP nodes and via the Data-Plane to the trust anchor
and other sources of CRL information.The interactions of an ACP registrar outlined and
above depend on the following parameters:
A URL to the trust anchor (root CA) and credentials so that the ACP
registrar can let the trust anchor sign candidate ACP member certificates.The ACP domain-name.The Registrar-ID to use. This could default to a MAC address of the ACP registrar.For recovery, the next-useable Node-IDs for zone (Zone-ID=0) sub-addressing scheme,
for Vlong /112 and for Vlong /1120 sub-addressing scheme. These IDs would only need
to be provisioned after recovering from a crash. Some other mechanism would
be required to remember these IDs in a backup location or to recover them
from the set of currently known ACP nodes.Policies if candidate ACP nodes should receive a domain certificate or not,
for example based on the devices LDevID as in BRSKI. The ACP registrar may have
a whitelist or blacklist of devices serialNumbers from teir LDevID.Policies what type of address prefix to assign to a candidate ACP devices,
based on likely the same information.For BRSKI or other mechanisms using vouchers: Parameters to determine
how to retrieve vouchers for specific type of secure bootstrap candidate
ACP nodes (such as MASA URLs), unless this information is automatically
learned such as from the LDevID of candidate ACP nodes (as defined in BRSKI).When an ACP node renews/rekeys its certificate, it may end up doing so via
a different registrar (e.g., EST server) than the one it originally received
its ACP domain certificate from, for example because that original ACP registrar
is gone. The ACP registrar through which the renewal/rekeying is performed
would by default trust the ACP domain information from the ACP nodes current
ACP domain certificate and maintain this information so that the ACP node
maintains its ACP address prefix. In EST renewal/rekeying, the ACP nodes current
ACP domain certificate is signaled during the TLS handshake.This simple scenario has two limitations:
The ACP registrars can not directly assign certificates to nodes and
therefore needs an "online" connection to the trust anchor (root CA).Recovery from a compromised ACP registrar is difficult.
When an ACP registrar is compromised, it can insert for example
conflicting ACP domain information and create thereby an attack
against other ACP nodes through the ACP routing protocol.Even when such a malicious ACP registrar is detected, resolving the
problem may be difficult because it would require identifying all the
wrong ACP domain certificates assigned via the ACP registrar after it was
was compromised. And without additional centralized tracking of assigned
certificates there is no way to do this - assuming one can not retrieve
this information from the .In situations, where either of the above two limitations are an issue,
ACP registrars could also be sub-CAs. This removes the need for
connectivity to a root-CA whenever an ACP node is enrolled, and reduces
the need for connectivity of such an ACP registrar to a root-CA to only
those times when it needs to renew its own certificate. The ACP registrar
would also now use its own (sub-CA) certificate to enroll and sign the
ACP nodes certificates, and therefore it is only necessary to revoke
a compromised ACP registrars sub-CA certificate. Or let it expire and
not renew it, when the certificate of the sub-CA is appropriately
short-lived.As the ACP domain membership check verifies a
peer ACP node's ACP domain certicate trust chain, it will also verify
the signing certificate which is the compromised/revoked sub-CA certificate.
Therefore ACP domain membership for an ACP node enrolled from a
compromised ACP registrar will fail.ACP nodes enrolled by a compromised ACP registrar
would automatically fail to establish ACP channels and ACP domain
certificate renewal via EST and therefore revert to their role as
a candidate ACP members and attempt to get a new ACP domain certificate
from an ACP registrar - for example via BRSKI. In result, ACP registrars that have an
associated sub-CA makes isolating and resolving issues with
compromised registrars easier.Note that ACP registrars with sub-CA functionality also can control the
lifetime of ACP domain certificates easier and therefore also be used as
a tool to introduce short lived certificates and not rely on CRL,
whereas the certificates for the sub-CAs themselves could be longer
lived and subject to CRL.When using multiple, uncoordinated ACP registrars, several advanced
operations are potentially more complex than with a single, resilient
policy control backend, for example including but not limited to:
Which candidate ACP node is permitted or not permitted into an
ACP domain. This may not be a decision to be taken upfront, so that
a per-serialNumber policy can be loaded into ever ACP registrar.
Instead, it may better be decided in real-time including potentially
a human decision in a NOC.Tracking of all enrolled ACP nodes and their certificate information.
For example in support of revoking individual ACP nodes certificates.More flexible policies what type of address prefix or even what specific
address prefix to assign to a candidate ACP node.These and other operations could be introduced more easily by
introducing a centralized Policy Management System (PMS) and modifying
ACP registrar behavior so that it queries the PMS for any policy decision
occuring during the candidate ACP node enrollment process and/or the
ACP node certificate renewal process. For example, which ACP address
prefix to assign. Likewise the ACP registrar would report any relevant state
change information to the PMS as well, for example when a certificate
was successfully enrolled onto a candidate ACP node. Both ACP and BRSKI require interfaces to be operational enough to support sending/receiving their packets. In node types where interfaces are by default (e.g., without operator configuration) enabled, such as most L2 switches, this would be less of a change in behavior than in most L3 devices (e.g.: routers), where interfaces are by default disabled. In almost all network devices it is common though for configuration to change interfaces to a physically disabled state and that would break the ACP.In this section, we discuss a suggested operational model to enable/disable interfaces and nodes for ACP/ANI in a way that minimizes the risk of operator action to break the ACP in this way, and that also minimizes operator surprise when ACP/ANI becomes supported in node software.Whenever this document refers to enabling an interface for ACP (or BRSKI), it only requires to permit the interface to send/receive packets necessary to operate ACP (or BRSKI) - but not any other Data-Plane packets. Unless the Data-Plane is explicitly configured/enabled, all packets not required for ACP/BRSKI should be filtered on input and output:Both BRSKI and ACP require link-local only IPv6 operations on interfaces and DULL GRASP. IPv6 link-local operations means the minimum signaling to auto-assign an IPv6 link-local address and talk to neighbors via their link-local address: SLAAC (Stateless Address Auto-Configuration - ) and ND (Neighbor Discovery - ). When the device is a BRSKI pledge, it may also require TCP/TLS connections to BRSKI proxies on the interface. When the device has keying material, and the ACP is running, it requires DULL GRASP packets and packets necessary for the secure-channel mechanism it supports, e.g., IKEv2 and IPsec ESP packets or DTLS packets to the IPv6 link-local address of an ACP neighbor on the interface. It also requires TCP/TLS packets for its BRSKI proxy functionality, if it does support BRSKI.Interfaces on most network equipment have at least two states: "up" and "down". These may have product specific names. "down" for example could be called "shutdown" and "up" could be called "no shutdown". The "down" state disables all interface operations down to the physical level. The "up" state enables the interface enough for all possible L2/L3 services to operate on top of it and it may also auto-enable some subset of them. More commonly, the operations of various L2/L3 services is controlled via additional node-wide or interface level options, but they all become only active when the interface is not "down". Therefore an easy way to ensure that all L2/L3 operations on an interface are inactive is to put the interface into "down" state. The fact that this also physically shuts down the interface is in many cases just a side effect, but it may be important in other cases (see below, ).To provide ACP/ANI resilience against operators configuring interfaces to "down" state, this document
recommends to separate the "down" state of interfaces into an "admin down" state where the physical layer is kept running and ACP/ANI can use the interface and a "physical down" state. Any existing "down" configurations would map to "admin down". In "admin down", any existing L2/L3 services of the Data-Plane should see no difference to "physical down" state. To ensure that no Data-Plane packets could be sent/received, packet filtering could be established automatically as described above in .As necessary (see discussion below) new configuration options could be introduced to issue "physical down". The options should be provided with additional checks to minimize the risk of issuing them in a way that breaks the ACP without automatic restoration. For example they could be denied to be issued from a control connection (netconf/ssh) that goes across the interface itself ("do not disconnect yourself"). Or they could be performed only temporary and only be made permanent with additional later reconfirmation.In the following sub-sections important aspects to the introduction of "admin down" state are discussed.Interfaces are physically brought down (or left in default down state) as a form of security.
"Admin down" state as described above provides also a high level of security
because it only permits ACP/ANI operations which are both well secured. Ultimately, it is subject to
security review for the deployment whether "admin down" is a feasible replacement for "physical down".The need to trust into the security of ACP/ANI operations need to be weighed against
the operational benefits of permitting this: Consider the typical example of a CPE (customer
premises equipment) with no on-site network expert. User ports are in physical
down state unless explicitly configured not to be. In a misconfiguration situation, the uplink
connection is incorrectly plugged into such a user port. The device is disconnected from the
network and therefore no diagnostics from the network side is possible anymore.
Alternatively, all ports default to "admin down". The ACP (but not the Data-Plane) would
still automatically form. Diagnostics from the network side is possible and operator
reaction could include to either make this port the operational uplink port or to instruct
re-cabling. Security wise, only ACP/ANI could be attacked, all other functions are filtered
on interfaces in "admin down" state."Physical down" state propagates on many interface types (e.g., Ethernet) to the other side.
This can trigger fast L2/L3 protocol reaction on the other side and "admin down" would not
have the same (fast) result.Bringing interfaces to "physical down" state is to the best of our knowledge always
a result of operator action, but today, never the result of (autonomic) L2/L3 services
running on the nodes. Therefore one option is to change the operator action to not
rely on link-state propagation anymore. This may not be possible when both sides are
under different operator control, but in that case it is unlikely that the ACP is running
across the link and actually putting the interface into "physical down" state may
still be a good option.Ideally, fast physical state propagation is replaced by fast software driven state
propagation. For example a DULL GRASP "admin-state" objective could be used to auto configure
a Bidirectional Forwarding Protocol (BFD, ) session between the two sides of the link that would be used to propagate the
"up" vs. admin down state.Triggering physical down state may also be used as a mean of diagnosing cabling
in the absence of easier methods. It is more complex than automated neighbor diagnostics
because it requires coordinated remote access to both (likely) sides of a link to
determine whether up/down toggling will cause the same reaction on the remote side.See for a discussion about how LLDP and/or diagnostics
via GRASP could be used to provide neighbor diagnostics, and therefore hopefully
eliminating the need for "physical down" for neighbor diagnostics - as long as both
neighbors support ACP/ANI."Physical down" is performed to diagnose low-level interface behavior when higher layer services (e.g., IPv6) are not working. Especially Ethernet links are subject to a wide variety of possible wrong configuration/cablings if they do not support automatic selection of variable parameters such as speed (10/100/1000 Mbps), crossover (Auto-MDIX) and connector (fiber, copper - when interfaces have multiple but can only enable one at a time). The need for low level link diagnostic can therefore be minimized by using fully auto configuring links.In addition to "Physical down", low level diagnostics of Ethernet or other interfaces also involve the creation of other states on interfaces, such as physical Loopback (internal and/or external) or bringing down all packet transmissions for reflection/cable-length measurements. Any of these options would disrupt ACP as well.In cases where such low-level diagnostics of an operational link is desired but where the link could be a single point of failure for the ACP, ASA on both nodes of the link could perform a negotiated diagnostics that automatically terminates in a predetermined manner without dependence on external input ensuring the link will become operational again.Power consumption of "physical down" interfaces, may be significantly lower than those
in "admin down" state, for example on long-range fiber interfaces. Bringing up
interfaces, for example to probe reachabiliy, may also consume additional power. This
can make these type of interfaces inappropriate to operate purely for the ACP when
they are not currently needed for the Data-Plane.The interface level configuration option "ACP enable" enables ACP operations on an interface, starting with ACP neighbor discovery via DULL GRAP. The interface level configuration option "ANI enable" on nodes supporting BRSKI and ACP starts with BRSKI pledge operations when there is no domain certificate on the node. On ACP/BRSKI nodes, "ACP enable" may not need to be supported, but only "ANI enable". Unless overridden by global configuration options (see later), "ACP/ANI enable" will result in "down" state on an interface to behave as "admin down".() requires that "ACP enable" is automatically set on native interfaces, but not on non-native interfaces (reminder: a native interface is one that exists without operator configuration action such as physical interfaces in physical devices).Ideally, ACP enable is set automatically on all interfaces that provide access to additional connectivity that allows to reach more nodes of the ACP domain. The best set of interfaces necessary to achieve this is not possible to determine automatically. Native interfaces are the best automatic approximation.Consider an ACP domain of ACP nodes transitively connected via native interfaces. A Data-Plane tunnel between two of these nodes that are non-adjacent is created and "ACP enable" is set for that tunnel. ACP RPL sees this tunnel as just as a single hop. Routes in the ACP would use this hop as an attractive path element to connect regions adjacent to the tunnel nodes. In result, the actual hop-by-hop paths used by traffic in the ACP can become worse. In addition, correct forwarding in the ACP now depends on correct Data-Plane forwarding config including QoS, filtering and other security on the Data-Plane path across which this tunnel runs. This is the main issue why "ACP/ANI enable" should not be set automatically on non-native interfaces.If the tunnel would connect two previously disjoint ACP regions, then it likely would be useful for the ACP. A Data-Plane tunnel could also run across nodes without ACP and provide additional connectivity for an already connected ACP network. The benefit of this additional ACP redundancy has to be weighed against the problems of relying on the Data-Plane. If a tunnel connects two separate ACP regions: how many tunnels should be created to connect these ACP regions reliably enough? Between which nodes? These are all standard tunneled network design questions not specific to the ACP, and there are no generic fully automated answers.Instead of automatically setting "ACP enable" on these type of interfaces, the decision needs to be based on the use purpose of the non-native interface and "ACP enable" needs to be set in conjunction with the mechanism through which the non-native interface is created/configured.In addition to explicit setting of "ACP/ANI enable", non-native interfaces also need to support configuration of the ACP RPL cost of the link - to avoid the problems of attracting too much traffic to the link as described above.Even native interfaces may not be able to automatically perform BRSKI or ACP because they may require additional operator input to become operational. Example include DSL interfaces requiring PPPoE credentials or mobile interfaces requiring credentials from a SIM card. Whatever mechanism is used to provide the necessary config to the device to enable the interface can also be expanded to decide on whether or not to set "ACP/ANI enable".The goal of automatically setting "ACP/ANI enable" on interfaces (native or not) is to eliminate unnecessary "touches" to the node to make its operation as much as possible "zero-touch" with respect to ACP/ANI. If there are "unavoidable touches" such a creating/configuring a non-native interface or provisioning credentials for a native interface, then "ACP/ANI enable" should be added as an option to that "touch". If a wrong "touch" is easily fixed (not creating another high-cost touch), then the default should be not to enable ANI/ACP, and if it is potentially expensive or slow to fix (e.g., parameters on SIM card shipped to remote location), then the default should be to enable ACP/ANI.A node level command "ACP/ANI enable [up-if-only]" enables ACP or ANI on the node (ANI = ACP + BRSKI). Without this command set, any interface level "ACP/ANI enable" is ignored. Once set, ACP/ANI will operate interface where "ACP/ANI enable" is set. Setting of interface level "ACP/ANI enable" is either automatic (default) or explicit through operator action as described in the previous section.If the option "up-if-only" is selected, the behavior of "down" interfaces is unchanged, and ACP/ANI will only operate on interfaces where "ACP/ANI enable" is set and that are "up". When it is not set, then "down" state of interfaces with "ACP/ANI enable" is modified to behave as "admin down".A "brownfield" node is one that already has a configured Data-Plane.Executing global "ACP/ANI enable [up-if-only]" on each node is the only command necessary to create an ACP across a network of brownfield nodes once all the nodes have a domain certificate. When BRSKI is used ("ANI enable"), provisioning of the certificates only requires set-up of a single BRSKI registrar node which could also implement a CA for the network. This is the most simple way to introduce ACP/ANI into existing (== brownfield) networks.The need to explicitly enable ACP/ANI is especially important in brownfield nodes because otherwise software updates may introduce support for ACP/ANI: Automatic enablement of ACP/ANI in networks where the operator does not only not want ACP/ANI but where he likely never even heard of it could be quite irritating to him. Especially when "down" behavior is changed to "admin down".Automatically setting "ANI enable" on brownfield nodes where the operator is unaware of it could also be a critical security issue depending on the vouchers used by BRKSI on these nodes. An attacker could claim to be the owner of these devices and create an ACP that the attacker has access/control over. In network where the operator explicitly wants to enable the ANI this could not happen, because he would create a BRSKI registrar that would discover attack attempts. Nodes requiring "ownership vouchers" would not be subject to that attack. See for more details. Note that a global "ACP enable" alone is not subject to these type of attacks, because it always depends on some other mechanism first to provision domain certificates into the device.A "greenfield" node is one that did not have any prior configuration.For greenfield nodes, only "ANI enable" is relevant. If another mechanism than BRSKI is used to (zero-touch) bootstrap a node, then it is up to that mechanism to provision domain certificates and to set global "ACP enable" as desired.Nodes supporting full ANI functionality set "ANI enable" automatically when they decide that they are greenfield, e.g., that they are powering on from factory condition. They will then put all native interfaces into "admin down" state and start to perform BRSKI pledge functionality - and once a domain certificate is enrolled they automatically enable ACP.Attempts for BRSKI pledge operations in greenfield state should terminate automatically when another method of configuring the node is used. Methods that indicate some form of physical possession of the device such as configuration via the serial console port could lead to immediate termination of BRSKI, while other parallel auto configuration methods subject to remote attacks might lead to BRSKI termination only after they were successful. Details of this may vary widely over different type of nodes. When BRSKI pledge operation terminates, this will automatically unset "ANI enable" and should terminate any temporarily needed state on the device to perform BRSKI - DULL GRASP, BRSKI pledge and any IPv6 configuration on interfaces.Disabling ANI/ACP by undoing "ACP/ANI enable" is a risk for the reliable operations of the ACP if it can be executed by mistake or unauthorized.
This behavior could be influenced through some additional property in the certificate (e.g., in the domain information extension field) subject to future work: In an ANI deployment intended for convenience, disabling it could be allowed without further constraints. In an ANI deployment considered to be critical more checks would be required.
One very controlled option would be to not permit these commands unless the domain certificate has been revoked or is denied renewal. Configuring this option would be a parameter on the BRSKI registrar(s). As long as the node did not receive a domain certificate, undoing "ANI/ACP enable" should not have any additional constraints.Node-wide "ACP/ANI enable [up-if-only]" commands enable the operation of ACP/ANI. This is only auto-enabled on ANI greenfield devices, otherwise it must be configured explicitly.If the option "up-if-only" is not selected, interfaces enabled for ACP/ANI interpret "down" state as "admin down" and not "physical down". In "admin-down" all non-ACP/ANI packets are filtered, but the physical layer is kept running to permit ACP/ANI to operate.(New) commands that result in physical interruption ("physical down", "loopback") of ACP/ANI enabled interfaces should be built to protect continuance or reestablishment of ACP as much as possible.Interface level "ACP/ANI enable" control per-interface operations. It is enabled by default on native interfaces and has to be configured explicitly on other interfaces.Disabling "ACP/ANI enable" global and per-interface should have additional checks to minimize undesired breakage of ACP. The degree of control could be a domain wide parameter in the domain certificates.An ACP is self-protecting and there is no need to apply configuration to make it secure. Its security therefore does not depend on configuration. See for details of how the ACP protects itself against attacks from the outside and to a more limited degree from the inside as well.However, the security of the ACP depends on a number of other factors:
The usage of domain certificates depends on a valid supporting PKI infrastructure. If the chain of trust of this PKI infrastructure is compromised, the security of the ACP is also compromised. This is typically under the control of the network administrator.Security can be compromised by implementation errors (bugs), as in all products.There is no prevention of source-address spoofing inside the ACP. This implies that if an attacker gains access to the ACP, it can spoof all addresses inside the ACP and fake messages from any other node.Fundamentally, security depends on correct operation, implementation and architecture. Autonomic approaches such as the ACP largely eliminate the dependency on correct operation; implementation and architectural mistakes are still possible, as in all networking technologies.Many details of ACP are designed with security in mind and discussed elsewhere in the document:IPv6 addresses used by nodes in the ACP are covered as part of the node's domain certificate as described in . This allows even verification of ownership of a peers IPv6 address when using a connection authenticated with the domain certificate.The ACP acts as a security (and transport) substrate for GRASP inside the ACP such that GRASP is not only protected by attacks from the outside, but also by attacks from compromised inside attackers - by relying not only on hop-by-hop security of ACP secure channels, but adding end-to-end security for those GRASP messages. See .ACP provides for secure, resilient zero-touch discovery of EST servers for certificate renewal. See .ACP provides extensible, auto-configuring hop-by-hop protection of the ACP infrastructure via the negotiation of hop-by-hop secure channel protocols. See and .The ACP is designed to minimize attacks from the outside by minimizing its dependency against any non-ACP (Data-Plane) operations/configuration on a node. See also .In combination with BRSKI, ACP enables a resilient, fully zero-touch network solution for short-lived certificates that can be renewed or re-enrolled even after unintentional expiry (e.g., because of interrupted connectivity). See .This document defines the "Autonomic Control Plane". The IANA is requested to register the value "AN_ACP" (without quotes)
to the GRASP Objectives Names Table in the GRASP Parameter Registry. The
specification for this value is this document, . The IANA is requested to register the value "SRV.est" (without quotes)
to the GRASP Objectives Names Table in the GRASP Parameter Registry. The
specification for this value is this document, .Note that the objective format "SRV.<service-name>" is intended to be used
for any <service-name> that is an registered service
name. This is a proposed update to the GRASP registry subject to future work and
only mentioned here for informational purposed to explain the unique format of the objective name. The IANA is requested to create an ACP Parameter Registry with
currently one registry table - the "ACP Address Type" table."ACP Address Type" Table. The value in this table are numeric values 0...3 paired with a name (string). Future values MUST be assigned using the Standards Action policy defined by . The following initial values are assigned by this document:
0: ACP Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme (ACP RFC ) / ACP Manual Addressing Sub-Scheme (ACP RFC )
1: ACP Vlong Addressing Sub-Scheme (ACP RFC )
This work originated from an Autonomic Networking project at Cisco Systems, which started in early 2010. Many people contributed to this project and the idea of the Autonomic Control Plane, amongst which (in alphabetical order): Ignas Bagdonas, Parag Bhide, Balaji BL, Alex Clemm, Yves Hertoghs, Bruno Klauser, Max Pritikin, Michael Richardson, Ravi Kumar Vadapalli.Special thanks to Brian Carpenter, Elwyn Davies, Joel Halpern and Sheng Jiang for their thorough reviews and to Pascal Thubert and Michael Richardson to provide the details for the recommendations of the use of RPL in the ACP.Further input, review or suggestions were received from: Rene Struik, Brian Carpenter, Benoit Claise, William Atwood and Yongkang Zhang.First version of this document: draft-behringer-autonomic-control-planeInitial version of the anima document; only minor edits.Clarified that the ACP should be based on, and support only IPv6.Clarified in intro that ACP is for both, between devices, as well as for access from a central entity, such as an NMS.Added a section on how to connect an NMS system.Clarified the hop-by-hop crypto nature of the ACP.Added several references to GDNP as a candidate protocol.Added a discussion on network split and merge. Although, this should probably go into the certificate management story longer term.Addresses (numerous) comments from Brian Carpenter. See mailing list for details. The most important changes are:
Introduced a new section "overview", to ease the understanding of the approach.Merged the previous "problem statement" and "use case" sections into a mostly re-written "use cases" section, since they were overlapping.Clarified the relationship with draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivityTook out requirement for IPv6 --> that's in the reference doc.Added requirement section.Changed focus: more focus on autonomic functions, not only virtual out-of-band. This goes a bit throughout the document, starting with a changed abstract and intro.No changes; re-submitted as WG document.Added some paragraphs in addressing section on "why IPv6 only", to reflect the discussion on the list.Moved the Data-Plane ACP out of the main document, into an appendix. The focus is now the virtually separated ACP, since it has significant advantages, and isn't much harder to do.Changed the self-creation algorithm: Part of the initial steps go into the reference document. This document now assumes an adjacency table, and domain certificate. How those get onto the device is outside scope for this document.Created a new section 6 "workarounds for non-autonomic nodes", and put the previous controller section (5.9) into this new section. Now, section 5 is "autonomic only", and section 6 explains what to do with non-autonomic stuff. Much cleaner now.Added an appendix explaining the choice of RPL as a routing protocol.Formalised the creation process a bit more. Now, we create a "candidate peer list" from the adjacency table, and form the ACP with those candidates. Also it explains now better that policy (Intent) can influence the peer selection. (section 4 and 5)Introduce a section for the capability negotiation protocol (section 7). This needs to be worked out in more detail. This will likely be based on GRASP.Introduce a new parameter: ACP tunnel type. And defines it in the IANA considerations section. Suggest GRE protected with IPSec transport mode as the default tunnel type.Updated links, lots of small edits.Added explicitly text for the ACP channel negotiation.Merged draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-02 into this document, as suggested by WG chairs.Changed Neighbor discovery protocol from GRASP to mDNS. Bootstrap protocol team decided to go with mDNS to discover bootstrap proxy, and ACP should be consistent with this. Reasons to go with mDNS in bootstrap were a) Bootstrap should be reuseable also outside of full anima solutions and introduce as few as possible new elements. mDNS was considered well-known and very-likely even pre-existing in low-end devices (IoT). b) Using GRASP both for the insecure neighbor discovery and secure ACP operatations raises the risk of introducing security issues through implementation issues/non-isolation between those two instances of GRASP.Shortened the section on GRASP instances, because with mDNS being used for discovery, there is no insecure GRASP session any longer, simplifying the GRASP considerations.Added certificate requirements for ANIMA in section 5.1.1, specifically how the ANIMA information is encoded in subjectAltName.Deleted the appendix on "ACP without separation", as originally planned, and the paragraph in the main text referring to it.Deleted one sub-addressing scheme, focusing on a single scheme now.Included information on how ANIMA information must be encoded in the domain certificate in section "preconditions".Editorial changes, updated draft references, etc.Changed discovery of ACP neighbor back from mDNS to GRASP after revisiting the L2 problem. Described problem in discovery section itself to justify. Added text to explain how ACP discovery relates to BRSKY (bootstrap) discovery and pointed to Michael Richardsons draft detailing it. Removed appendix section that contained the original explanations why GRASP would be useful (current text is meant to be better).Section 5.3 (candidate ACP neighbor selection): Add that Intent can override only AFTER an initial default ACP establishment. (addressing): State that addresses in the ACP are permanent, and do not support temporary addresses as defined in RFC4941.Modified to point to the GRASP objective defined in draft-carpenter-anima-ani-objectives. (and added that reference) : changed from MD5 for calculating the first 40 bits to SHA256; reason is MD5 should not be used any more.Added address sub-scheme to the IANA section.Made the routing section more prescriptive.Clarified in the ACP Connect port, and defined that term "ACP Connect".: Added some thoughts (from mcr) on how traversing a L3 cloud could be automated.Added a CRL check in .Added a note on the possibility of source-address spoofing into the security considerations section.Other editoral changes, including those proposed by Michael Richardson on 30 Nov 2016 (see ANIMA list).Added proposed RPL profile.detailed DTLS profile - DTLS with any additional negotiation/signaling channel.Fixed up text for ACP/GRE encap. Removed text claiming its incompatible with non-GRE IPsec and detailled it.Added text to suggest admin down interfaces should still run ACP.Changed author association.Improved ACP connect setion (after confusion about term came up in the stable connectivity draft review). Added picture, defined complete terminology.Moved ACP channel negotiation from normative section to appendix because it can in the timeline of this document not be fully specified to be implementable. Aka: work for future document. That work would also need to include analysing IKEv2 and describin the difference of a proposed GRASP/TLS solution to it.Removed IANA request to allocate registry for GRASP/TLS. This would come with future draft (see above).Gave the name "ACP information field" to the field in the certificate carrying the ACP address and domain name.Changed the rules for mutual authentication of certificates to rely on the domain in the ACP information field of the certificate instead of the OU in the certificate. Also renewed the text pointing out that the ACP information field in the certificate is meant to be in a form that it does not disturb other uses of the certificate. As long as the ACP expected to rely on a common OU across all certificates in a domain, this was not really true: Other uses of the certificates might require different OUs for different areas/type of devices. With the rules in this draft version, the ACP authentication does not rely on any other fields in the certificate.Added an extension field to the ACP information field so that in the future additional fields like a subdomain could be inserted. An example using such a subdomain field was added to the pre-existing text suggesting sub-domains. This approach is necessary so that there can be a single (main) domain in the ACP information field, because that is used for mutual authentication of the certificate. Also clarified that only the register(s) SHOULD/MUST use that the ACP address was generated from the domain name - so that we can easier extend change this in extensions.Took the text for the GRASP discovery of ACP neighbors from Brians grasp-ani-objectives draft. Alas, that draft was behind the latest GRASP draft, so i had to overhaul. The mayor change is to describe in the ACP draft the whole format of the M_FLOOD message (and not only the actual objective). This should make it a lot easier to read (without having to go back and forth to the GRASP RFC/draft). It was also necessary because the locator in the M_FLOOD messages has an important role and its not coded inside the objective. The specification of how to format the M_FLOOD message shuold now be complete, the text may be some duplicate with the DULL specificateion in GRASP, but no contradiction.One of the main outcomes of reworking the GRASP section was the notion that GRASP announces both the candidate peers IPv6 link local address but also the support ACP security protocol including the port it is running on. In the past we shied away from using this information because it is not secured, but i think the additional attack vectors possible by using this information are negligible: If an attacker on an L2 subnet can fake another devices GRASP message then it can already provide a similar amount of attack by purely faking the link-local address.Removed the section on discovery and BRSKI. This can be revived in the BRSKI document, but it seems mood given how we did remove mDNS from the latest BRSKI document (aka: this section discussed discrepancies between GRASP and mDNS discovery which should not exist anymore with latest BRSKI.Tried to resolve the EDNOTE about CRL vs. OCSP by pointing out we do not specify which one is to be used but that the ACP should be used to reach the URL included in the certificate to get to the CRL storage or OCSP server.Changed ACP via IPsec to ACP via IKEv2 and restructured the sections to make IPsec native and IPsec via GRE subsections.No need for any assigned DTLS port if ACP is run across DTLS because it is signaled via GRASP.Modified mentioning of BRSKI to make it consistent with current (07/2017) target for BRSKI: MASA and IDevID are mandatory. Devices with only insecure UDI would need a security reduced variant of BRSKI. Also added mentioning of Netconf Zero-Touch. Made BRSKI non-normative for ACP because wrt. ACP it is just one option how the domain certificate can be provisioned. Instead, BRSKI is mandatory when a device implements ANI which is ACP+BRSKI.Enhanced text for ACP across tunnels to decribe two options: one across configured tunnels (GRE, IPinIP etc) a more efficient one via directed DULL.Moved decription of BRSKI to appendex to emphasize that BRSKI is not a (normative) dependency of GRASP,
enhanced text to indicate other options how Domain Certificates can be provisioned.Added terminology section.Separated references into normative and non-normative.Enhanced section about ACP via "tunnels". Defined an option to run ACP secure channel without an outer tunnel, discussed PMTU, benefits of tunneling, potential of using this with BRSKI, made ACP via GREP a SHOULD requirement.Moved appendix sections up before IANA section because there where concerns about appendices to be to far on the bottom to be read. Added (Informative) / (Normative) to section titles to clarify which sections are informative and which are normativeMoved explanation of ACP with L2 from precondition to separate section before workarounds, made it instructive enough to explain how to implement ACP on L2 ports for L3/L2 switches and made this part of normative requirement (L2/L3 switches SHOULD support this).Rewrote section "GRASP in the ACP" to define GRASP in ACP as mandatory (and why), and define the ACP as security and transport substrate to GRASP in ACP. And how it works.Enhanced "self-protection" properties section: protect legacy management protocols. Security in ACP is for protection from outside and those legacy protocols. Otherwise need end-to-end encryption also inside ACP, e.g., with domain certificate.Enhanced initial domain certificate section to include requirements for maintenance (renewal/revocation) of certificates. Added explanation to BRSKI informative section how to handle very short lived certificates (renewal via BRSKI with expired cert).Modified the encoding of the ACP address to better fit RFC822 simple local-parts (":" as required by RFC5952 are not permitted in simple dot-atoms according to RFC5322. Removed reference to RFC5952 as its now not needed anymore.Introduced a sub-domain field in the ACP information in the certificate to allow defining such subdomains with depending on future Intent definitions. It also makes it clear what the "main domain" is. Scheme is called "routing subdomain" to have a unique name.Added V8 (now called Vlong) addressing sub-scheme according to suggestion from mcr in his mail from 30 Nov 2016 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/nZpEphrTqDCBdzsKMpaIn2gsIzI). Also modified the explanation of the single V bit in the first sub-scheme now renamed to Zone sub-scheme to distinguish it.Added reference to RFC4191 and explained how it should be used on ACP edge routers to allow auto configuration of routing by NMS hosts. This came after review of stable connectivity draft where ACP connect is being referred to.V8 addressing Sub-Scheme was modified to allow not only /8 device-local address space but also /16. This was in response to the possible need to have maybe as much as 2^12 local addresses for future encaps in BRSKI like IPinIP. It also would allow fully autonomic address assignment for ACP connect interfaces from this local address space (on an ACP edge device), subject to approval of the implied update to rfc4291/rfc4193 (IID length). Changed name to Vlong addressing sub-scheme.Added text in response to Brian Carpenters review of draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-04.The stable connectivity draft was vaguely describing ACP connect behavior that is better standardized in this ACP draft.Added new ACP "Manual" addressing sub-scheme with /64 subnets for use with
ACP connect interfaces. Being covered by the ACP ULA prefix, these subnets do
not require additional routing entries for NMS hosts. They also are fully
64-bit IID length compliant and therefore not subject to 4191bis considerations.
And they avoid that operators manually assign prefixes from the ACP ULA prefixes
that might later be assigned autonomiously.ACP connect auto-configuration: Defined that ACP edge devices, NMS hosts should use
RFC4191 to automatically learn ACP prefixes. This is especially necessary when the ACP uses multiple
ULA prefixes (via e.g., the rsub domain certificate option), or if ACP connect
subinterfaces use manually configured prefixes NOT covered by the ACP ULA prefixes.Explained how rfc6724 is (only) sufficient when the NMS host has a separate ACP
connect and Data-Plane interface. But not when there is a single interface.Added a separate subsection to talk about "software" instead of "NMS hosts" connecting
to the ACP via the "ACP connect" method. The reason is to point out that the "ACP connect"
method is not only a workaround (for NMS hosts), but an actual desirable long term
architectural component to modularily build software (e.g., ASA or OAM for VNF) into
ACP devices.Added a section to define how to run ACP connect across the same interface as
the Data-Plane. This turns out to be quite challenging because we only want to rely
on existing standards for the network stack in the NMS host/software and only define
what features the ACP edge device needs.Added section about use of GRASP over ACP connect.Added text to indicate packet processing/filtering for security: filter incorrect
packets arriving on ACP connect interfaces, diagnose on RPL root packets to incorrect
destination address (not in ACP connect section, but because of it).Reaffirm security goal of ACP: Do not permit non-ACP routers into ACP routing domain.Made this ACP document be an update to RFC4291 and RFC4193. At the core, some of the ACP addressing sub-schemes do effectively not use 64-bit IIDs as required by RFC4191 and debated in rfc4191bis. During 6man in prague, it was suggested that all documents that do not do this should be classified as such updates. Add a rather long section that summarizes the relevant parts of ACP addressing and usage and. Aka: This section is meant to be the primary review section for readers interested in these changes (e.g., 6man WG.).Added changes from Michael Richardsons review https://github.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/pull/3/commits, textual and:ACP discovery inside ACP is bad *doh*!.Better CA trust and revocation sentences.More details about RPL behavior in ACP.black hole route to avoid loops in RPL.Added requirement to terminate ACP channels upon cert expiry/revocation.Added fixes from 08-mcr-review-reply.txt (on github):AN Domain Names are FQDNs.Fixed bit length of schemes, numerical writing of bits (00b/01b).Lets use US american english.Used the term routing subdomain more consistently where previously only subdomain was used. Clarified use of routing subdomain in creation of ULA "global ID" addressing prefix.6.7.1.* Changed native IPsec encapsulation to tunnel mode (necessary), explaned why. Added notion that ESP is used, added explanations why tunnel/transport mode in native vs. GRE cases.6.10.3/6.10.5 Added term "ACP address range/set" to be able to better explain how the address in the ACP certificate is actually the base address (lowest address) of a range/set that is available to the device.6.10.4 Added note that manual address sub-scheme addresses must not be used within domain certificates (only for explicit configuration).6.12.5 Refined explanation of how ACP virtual interfaces work (p2p and multipoint). Did seek for pre-existing RFCs that explain how to built a multi-access interface on top of a full mesh of p2p connections (6man WG, anima WG mailing lists), but could not find any prior work that had a succinct explanation. So wrote up an explanation here. Added hopefully all necessary and sufficient details how to map ACP unicast packets to ACP secure channel, how to deal with ND packet details. Added verbage for ACP not to assign the virtual interface link-local address from the underlying interface. Addd note that GRAP link-local messages are treated specially but logically the same. Added paragraph about NBMA interfaces.remaining changes from Brian Carpenters review. See Github file draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane/08-carpenter-review-reply.tx for more detailst:Added multiple new RFC references for terms/technologies used.Fixed verbage in several places.2. (terminology) Added 802.1AR as reference.2. Fixed up definition of ULA.6.1.1 Changed definition of ACP information in cert into ABNF format. Added warning about maximum size of ACP address field due to domain-name limitations.6.2 Mentioned API requirement between ACP and clients leveraging adjacency table.6.3 Fixed TTL in GRASP example: msec, not hop-count!.6.8.2 MAYOR: expanded security/transport substrate text:Introduced term ACP GRASP virtual interface to explain how GRASP link-local multicast messages are encapsulated and replicated to neighbors. Explain how ACP knows when to use TLS vs. TCP (TCP only for link-local address (sockets). Introduced "ladder" picture to visualize stack.6.8.2.1 Expanded discussion/explanation of security model. TLS for GRASP unicsast connections across ACP is double encryption (plus underlying ACP secure channel), but highly necessary to avoid very simple man-in-the-middle attacks by compromised ACP members on-path. Ultimately, this is done to ensure that any apps using GRASP can get full end-to-end secrecy for information sent across GRASP. But for publically known ASA services, even this will not provide 100% security (this is discussed). Also why double encryption is the better/easier solution than trying to optimize this.6.10.1 Added discussion about pseudo-random addressing, scanning-attaacks (not an issue for ACP).6.12.2 New performance requirements section added.6.10.1 Added notion to first experiment with existing addressing schemes before defining new ones - we should be flexible enough.6.3/7.2 clarified the interactions between MLD and DULL GRASP and specified what needs to be done (e.g., in 2 switches doing ACP per L2 port).12. Added explanations and cross-references to various security aspects of ACP discussed elsewhere in the document.13. Added IANA requirements.Added RFC2119 boilerplate.Same text as -10 Unfortunately when uploading -10 .xml/.txt to datatracker, a wrong version of .txt got uploaded, only the .xml was correct. This impacts the -10 html version on datatra
cker and the PDF versions as well. Because rfcdiff also compares the .txt version, this -11 version was crea
ted so that one can compare changes from -09 and changes to the next version (-12).Sheng Jiangs extensive review. Thanks!
See Github file
draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane/09-sheng-review-reply.txt
for more details. Many of the larger changes listed below where
inspired by the review.Removed the claim that the document is updating RFC4291,RFC4193
and the section detailling it. Done on suggestion of Michael
Richardson - just try to describe use of addressing in a way that
would not suggest a need claim update to architecture.
Terminology cleanup:
Replaced "device" with "node" in text. Kept "device" only
when referring to "physical node". Added definitions for those words.
Includes changes of derived terms, especially in addressing:
"Node-ID" and "Node-Number" in the addressing details.Replaced term "autonomic FOOBAR" with "acp FOOBAR" as whereever
appropriate: "autonomic" would imply that the node would need to
support more than the ACP, but that is not correct in most of the
cases. Wanted to make sure that implementers know they only
need to support/implement ACP - unless stated otherwise.
Includes "AN->ACP node", "AN->ACP adjacency table" and so on.1 Added explanation in the introduction about relationship between
ACP, BRSKI, ANI and Autonomic Networks.6.1.1 Improved terminology and features of the certificate
information field. Now called domain information field instead
of ACP information field. The acp-address field in the domain
information field is now optional, enabling easier
introduction of various future options.6.1.2 Moved ACP domainer membership check from section 6.6 to (ACP secure
channels setup) here because it is not only used for ACP secure channel setup.6.1.3 Fix text about certificate renewal after discussion with Max Pritikin/Michael Richardson/Brian Carpenter:
Version 10 erroneously assumed that the certificate itself
could store a URL for renewal, but that is only possible
for CRL URLs. Text now only refers to "remembered EST server"
without implying that this is stored in the certificate.Objective for RFC7030/EST domain certificate renewal was changed to "SRV.est"
See also IANA section for explanation.Removed detail of distance based service selection.
This can be better done in future work because it would require
a lot more detail for a good DNS-SD compatible approach.Removed detail about trying to create more security by
using ACP address from certificate of peer. After rethinking,
this does not seem to buy additional security.6.10 Added reference to 6.12.5 in initial use of
"loopback interface" in section 6.10 in result of email
discussion michaelR/michaelB.10.2 Introduced informational section (diagnostics) because of
operational experience - ACP/ANI undeployable without at least
diagnostics like this.10.3 Introduced informational section (enabling/disabling) ACP.
Important to discuss this for security reasons (e.g., why to never
never auto-enable ANI on brownfield devices), for implementers
and to answer ongoing questions during WG meetings about how to
deal with shutdown interface.10.8 Added informational section discussing
possible future variations of the ACP for potential adopters
that cannot directly use the complete solution described in
this document unmodified.Swap author list (with permission).6.1.1. Eliminate blank lines in definition by making it a picture (reformatting only).6.10.3.1 New paragraph: Explained how nodes using Zone-ID != 0 need to use Zone-ID != 0 in GRASP so that we can avoid routing/forwarding of Zone-ID = 0 prefixes.Rest of feedback from review of -12, see https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/master/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane/12-feedback-reply.txtReview from Brian Carpenter:various: Autonomous -> autonomic(ally) in all remaining occurences.various: changed "manual (configured)" to "explicitly (configured)" to not exclude the option of (SDN controller) automatic configuration (no humans involved).1. Fixed reference to section 9.2. Added definition of loopback interface == internal interface. After discus on WG mailing lists, including 6man.6.1.2 Defined CDP/OCSP and pointed to RFC5280 for them.6.1.3 Removed "EST-TLS", no objective value needed or beneficial, added explanation paragraph why.6.2 Added to adjacency table the interface that a neighbor is discovered on.6.3 Simplified CDDL syntax: Only one method per AN_ACP objective (because of locators). Example with two objectives in GRASP message.6.8.1 Added note about link-local GRASP multicast message to avoid confusion.8.1.4 Added RFC8028 as recommended on hosts to better support VRF-select with ACP.8.2.1 Rewrote and Simplified CDDL for configured remote peer and explanations. Removed pattern option for remote peer. Not important enough to be mandated.Review thread started by William Atwood:2. Refined definition of VRF (vs. MPLS/VPN, LISP, VRF-LITE).2. Refined definition of ACP (ACP includes ACP GRASP instance).2. Added explanation for "zones" to terminology section and into Zone Addressing Sub Scheme section, relating it to RFC4007 zones (from Brian Carpenter).4. Fixed text for ACP4 requirement (Clients of the ACP must not be tied to specific protocol.).5. Fixed step 4. with proposed text.6.1.1 Included suggested explanation for rsub semantics.6.1.3 must->MUST for at least one EST server in ACP network to autonomically renew certs.6.7.2 normative: AND MUST NOT (permit weaker crypto options.6.7.1.1 also included text denying weaker IPsec profile options.6.8.2 Fixed description how to build ACP GRASP virtual interfaces. Added text that ACP continues to exist in absence of ACP neighbors.various: Make sure all "zone" words are used consistently.6.10.2/various: fixed 40 bit RFC4193 ULA prefix in all examples to 89b714f3db (thanks MichaelR).6.10.1 Removed comment about assigned ULA addressing. Decision not to use it now ancient history of WG decision making process, not worth nothing anymore in the RFC.Review from Yongkang Zhang:6.10.5 Fixed length of Node-Numbers in ACP Vlong Addressing Sub-Scheme.Disclaimer: All new text introduced by this revision provides only additional explanations/
details based on received reviews and analysis by the authors. No changes to beavior already
specified in prior revisions.Joel Halpern, review part 3:Define/explain "ACP registrar" in reply to Joel Halpern review part 3, resolving primarily 2 documentation issues::Unclear how much ACP depends on BRSKI. ACP document was referring unqualified
to registrars and Registrar-ID in the addressing section without explaining what
a registrar is, leading to the assumption it must be a BRSKI Registrar.Unclear how the ACP addresses in ACP domain certificates are assigned
because the BRSKI document does not defines this, but refers to this ACP document.Wrt. 1: ACP does NOT depend on BRSKI registrars, instead ANY appropriate automated
or manual mechanism can be used to enroll ACP nodes with ACP domain certificates.
This revision calls defines such mechanisms the "ACP registrar" and defines requirements.
this is non-normative, because it does not define specific mechanisms that need to be
support. In ANI devices, ACP Registrars are BRSKI Registrars. In non-ANI ACP networks, the
registrar may simply be a person using CLI/web-interfaces to provision domain certificates
and set the ACP address correctly in the ACP domain certificate.Wrt. 2.: The BRSKI document does rightfully not define how the ACP address assignment
and creation of the ACP domain information field has to work because this is independent
of BRSKI and needs to follow the same rules whatever protocol/mechanisms are used
to implement an ACP Registrar. Another set of protocols that could be used instead of
BRSKI is Netconf/Netconf-Call-Home, but such an alternative ACP Registrar solution
would need to be speficied in it's own document.Additional text/sections had to be added to detail important conditions so that
automatic certificate maintenance for ACP nodes (with BRSKI or other mechanisms) can
be done in a way that as good as possible maintains ACP address information of ACP
nodes across the nodes lifetime because that ACP address is intended as an identifier
of the ACP node.Summary of sections added:
6.1.3.5/6.1.3.6 (normative): re-enrollment of ACP nodes after certificate exiry/failure in a
way that allows to maintain as much as possible ACP address information.6.10.7 (normative): defines "ACP Registrar" including requirements and how it
can perform ACP address assignment.10.3 (informative): details / examples about registrars to help implementers and operators
understand easier how they operate, and provide suggestion of models that a likely
very ueful (sub-CA and/or centralized policy manaement).10.4 (informative): Explains the need for the multiple address sub-spaces defined
in response to discuss with Joel.Other changes:Updated references (RFC8366, RFC8368).Introduced sub-section headings for 6.1.3 (certificate maintenance) because
section became too long with newly added sub-sections. Also some small text fixups/remove of
duplicate text.Gen-ART review, Elwyn Davies:[RFC Editor: how can i raise the issue of problematic cross references of terms in the terminology section - rendering is problematic. ].4. added explanation for ACP4 (finally).6.1.1 Simplified text in bullet list explaining rfc822 encoding.6.1.3 refined second paragraph defining remembering of previous EST server and explaiing how to do this with BRSKI.9.1 Added paragraph outlining the benefit of the sub-CA Registrar option for supporting partitioned networks.Roughly 100 more nits/minor fixes throughout the document. See: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/master/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane/13-elwynd-reply.txtJoel Halpern, review part 2:6.1.1: added note about "+ +" format in address field when acp-address and rsub are empty.6.5.10 - clarified text about V bit in Vlong addressing scheme.6.10.3/6.10.4 - moved the Z bit field up front (directly after base scheme) and indicated more explicitly Z is part of selecting of the sub-addressing scheme.Refined text about reaching CRL Distribution Point, explain why address as indicator to use ACP.Note from Brian Carpenter: RFC Editor note for section reference into GRASP.IOT directorate review from Pascal Thubert:Various Nits/typos.TBD: Punted wish for mentioning RFC reference titles to RFC editor for now.1. Added section 1.1 - applicability, discussing protocol choices re. applicability to constrained devices (or not). Added notion of TCP/TLS va CoAP/DTLS to section 10.4 in support of this.2. Added in-band / out-of-band into terminology.5. Referenced section 8.2 for remote ACP channel configuration.6.3 made M_FLOOD periods RECOMMENDED (less guesswork)6.7.x Clarified conditional nature of MUST for the profile details of IPsec parameters (aka: onlt 6.7.3 defines actual MUST for nodes, prior notions only define the requirements for IPsec profiles IF IPsec is supported.6.8.1 Moved discussion about IP multicast, IGP, RPL for GRASP into a new subsection in the informative part (section 10) to tighten up text in normative part.6.10.1 added another reference to stable-connectivity for interop with IPv4 management.6.10.1 removed mentioning of ULA-Random, term was used in email discus of ULA with L=1, but term actually not defined in rfc4193, so mentioning it is just confusing/redundant. Also added note about the random hash being defined in this document, not using SHA1 from rfc4193.6.11.1.1 added suggested text about mechanisms to further reduce opportunities for loop during reconvergence (active signaling options from RFC6550).6.11.1.3 made mode 2 MUST and mode 2 MAY (RPL MOP - mode of operations). Removes ambiguity ambiguity.6.12.5 Added recommendation for RFC4429 (optimistic DAD).Nits from Benjamin Kaduk: dTLS -> DTLS:Review from Joel Halpern:1. swapped order of "purposes" for ACP to match order in section 3.1. Added notion about manageability of ACP gong beyond RFC7575 (before discussion of stable connectivity).2. Changed definition of Intent to be same as reference model (policy lanuage instead of API).6.1.1 changed BNF specification so that a local-part without acp-address (for future extensions) would not be rfcSELF.+rsub but simpler rfcSELF+rsub. Added explanation why rsub is in local-part.Tried to eliminate unnecessary references to VRF to minimize assumption how system is designed.6.1.3 Explained how to make CDP reachable via ACP.6.7.2 Made it clearer that constrained devices MUST support DTLS if they can not support IPsec.6.8.2.1 clarified first paragraph (TCP restransmissions lightweight).6.11.1 fixed up RPL profile text - to remove "VRF". Text was also buggy. mentioned control plane, but its a forwarding/silicon issue to have these header.6.12.5 Clarified how link-local ACP channel address can be derived, and how not.8.2.1 Fixed up text to distinguish between configuration and model describing parameters of the configuration (spec only provides parameter model).Various Nits.Only reshuffling and formatting changes, but wanted to allow reviewers later to easily compare -13 with -14, and these changes in -15 mess that up too much.increased TOC depth to 4.Separated and reordered section 10 into an operational and a background and futures section. The background and futures could also become appendices if the layout of appendices in RFC format wasn't so horrible that you really only want to avoid using them (all the way after a lot of text like references that stop most readers from proceeding any further).Mirja Kuehlewind:Tightened requirements for ACP related GRASP objective timers.Better text to introduce/explaine baseline and constrained ACP profiles.IANA guideline: MUST only accept extensible last allocation for address sub-scheme.Moved section 11 into appendix.Warren Kumari:Removed "global routing table", replacced with "Data-Plane routing (and forwarding) tables.added text to indicate how routing protocols do like to have data-plane dependencies.Changed power consumption section re. admin-down state. Power needed to bring up such interfaces make t inappropriate to probe. Need to think more about best sugests -> beyond scope.Replaced "console" with out-of-band... (console/management ethernet).Various nits.Joel Halpern:Fixed up domain information field ABNF to eliminate confusion that rsub is not an FQDN but only a prefix to routing-subdomain.Corrected certcheck to separate out cert verification into lifetime validity and proof of ownership of private key.Fixed pagination for "ACP as security and transport substrate for GRASP" picture.Review Alissa Cooper: Main discuss point fixed by untangling two specific node type cases: NOC nodes have ACP domain cert without acp-address field. Are ACP domain members, but can not build ACP secure channels (just end-to-end or nay other authentications. ACP nodes may have other methods to assign ACP address than getting it through the cert. This is indicated through new vlue 0 for acp-address in certificate. Accordingly modified texts in ABNF/explanation and Cert-Check section.Other:Better separation of normative text and considerations for "future" work:- Marked missing chapters as Informative. Reworded requirements section to indicate its informative nature, changed reqirements to _MUST_/_SHOULD_ to indicate these are not RFC2119 requirements but that this requirements section is really just in place of a separate solutions requirements document (that ANIMA was not allowed to produce).- removed ca. 20 instances of "futures" in normative part of document.- moved important instances of "futures" into new section A.10 (last section of appendix). These serve as reminder os work discussed dduring WG but not able to finish specifying it.Eliminated perception that "rsub" (routing subdomain) is only beneficial with future work. Example in A.7.Added RFC-editor note re formatting of references to terms defined in terminology section.Using now correct RFC 8174 boilerplate.Clarified semantic and use of manual ACP sub-scheme. Not used in certificates, only assigned via traditional methods. Use for ACP-connect subnets or the like.Corrected text about Data-Plane dependencies of ACP. Appropriate implementations can be fully data-plane independent (without more spec work) if not sharing link-local address with Data-Plane. 6.12.2 text updated to discuss those (MAC address), A.10.2 discusses options that would require new standards work.Moved all text about Intent into A.8 to clearl mark it as futures.Changed suggestion of future insecure ACP option to future "end-to-end-security-only" option.Various textual fixes.Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies:Some fixes also mentioned by Alissa.Added reference for OT.Fixed notion that secure channel is not only a security association.>20 good textual fixes. Thanks!Other:Added picture requested by Pascal Thubert about Dual-NOC (A.10.4).Moved RFC-editor request for better first RFC reference closer to the top of the document.Fixed typo /126 -> 127 for prefix length with zone address scheme.Overlooked early SecDir review from frank.xialiang@huawei.com:most issues fixed through other review in -16. Added reference to self-protection section 9.2
into security considerations section.
IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Secure Device Identity
IEEE SA-Standards Board
IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port-Based Network Access Control
IEEE SA-Standards Board
IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Media Access Control (MAC) Security
IEEE SA-Standards Board
IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery
IEEE SA-Standards BoardThe following sections discuss additional background information about aspects of the normative parts of this document or associated mechanisms such as BRSKI (such as why specific choices where made by the ACP) and they provide discussion about possble future variations of the ACP.This document defines the Zone, Vlong and Manual sub
address schemes primarily to support address prefix assignment
via distributed, potentially uncoordinated ACP registrars as defined
in . This
costs 48/46 bit identifier so that these ACP registrar can assign
non-conflicting address prefixes. This design does not leave enough
bits to simultaneously support a large number of nodes (Node-ID)
plus a large prefix of local addresses for every node plus a
large enough set of bits to identify a routing Zone. In result,
Zone, Vlong 8/16 attempt to support all features, but in via
separate prefixes.In networks that always expect to rely on a centralized PMS
as described above (), the 48/46 bits for
the Registrar-ID could be saved. Such variations of the ACP
addressing mecchanisms could be introduct through future work
in different ways. If the prefix rfcSELF in the ACP information
field was changed, incompatible ACP variations could be created
where every design aspect of the ACP could be changed. Including
all addressing choices. If instead a new addressing sub-type
would be defined, it could be a backward compatible extension
of this ACP specification. Information such as the size of a
zone-prefix and the length of the prefix assigned to the ACP
node itself could be encoded via the extension field of the
ACP domain information.Note that an explicitly defined "Manual" addressing sub-scheme
is always beneficial to provide an easy way for ACP nodes to prohibit
incorrect manual configuration of any non-"Manual" ACP address spaces
and therefore ensure hat "Manual" operations will never impact
correct routing for any non-"Manual" ACP addresses assigned via
ACP domain certificates. (BRSKI) describes how nodes with an IDevID certificate can securely and zero-touch enroll with a domain certificate (LDevID) to support the ACP. BRSKI also leverages the ACP to enable zero-touch bootstrap of new nodes across networks without any configuration requirements across the transit nodes (e.g., no DHCP/DNS forwarding/server setup). This includes otherwise not configured networks as described in . Therefore BRSKI in conjunction with ACP provides for a secure and zero-touch management solution for complete networks. Nodes supporting such an infrastructure (BRSKI and ACP) are called ANI nodes (Autonomic Networking Infrastructure), see . Nodes that do not support an IDevID but only an (insecure) vendor specific Unique Device Identifier (UDI) or nodes whose manufacturer does not support a MASA could use some future security reduced version of BRSKI.When BRSKI is used to provision a domain certificate (which is called enrollment), the BRSKI registrar (acting as an enhanced EST server) must include the subjectAltName / rfc822Name encoded ACP address and domain name to the enrolling node (called pledge) via its response to the pledges EST CSR Attribute request that is mandatory in BRSKI.The Certificate Authority in an ACP network must not change the subjectAltName / rfc822Name in the certificate. The ACP nodes can therefore find their ACP address and domain using this field in the domain certificate, both for themselves, as well as for other nodes.The use of BRSKI in conjunction with the ACP can also help to further simplify maintenance and renewal of domain certificates. Instead of relying on CRL, the lifetime of certificates can be made extremely small, for example in the order of hours. When a node fails to connect to the ACP within its certificate lifetime, it cannot connect to the ACP to renew its certificate across it (using just EST), but it can still renew its certificate as an "enrolled/expired pledge" via the BRSKI bootstrap proxy. This requires only that the BRSKI registrar honors expired domain certificates and that the pledge first attempts to perform TLS authentication for BRSKI bootstrap with its expired domain certificate - and only reverts to its IDevID when this fails. This mechanism could also render CRLs unnecessary because the BRSKI registrar in conjunction with the CA would not renew revoked certificates - only a "Do-not-renew" list would be necessary on BRSKI registrars/CA.In the absence of BRSKI or less secure variants thereof, provisioning of certificates may involve one or more touches or non-standardized automation. Node vendors usually support provisioning of certificates into nodes via PKCS#7 (see ) and may support this provisioning through vendor specific models via Netconf (). If such nodes also support Netconf Zero-Touch () then this can be combined to zero-touch provisioning of domain certificates into nodes. Unless there are equivalent integration of Netconf connections across the ACP as there is in BRSKI, this combination would not support zero-touch bootstrap across a not configured network though.This section discusses why GRASP DULL was chosen as the discovery protocol
for L2 adjacent candidate ACP neighbors. The contenders considered where GRASP, mDNS or LLDP.LLDP and Cisco's earlier Cisco Discovery Protocol (CDP) are example of L2 discovery protocols that terminate
their messages on L2 ports. If those protocols would be chosen for ACP neighbor discovery,
ACP neighbor discovery would therefore also terminate on L2 ports. This would prevent ACP construction
over non-ACP capable but LLDP or CDP enabled L2 switches. LLDP has extensions using different MAC
addresses and this could have been an option for ACP discovery as well, but the additional required
IEEE standardization and definition of a profile for such a modified instance of LLDP seemed to be
more work than the benefit of "reusing the existing protocol" LLDP for this very simple purpose.Multicast DNNS (mDNS) with DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD) Resource Records (RRs) as defined in
is a key contender as an ACP discovery protocol. because it relies on link-local IP multicast,
it does operates at the subnet level, and is also found in L2 switches. The authors
of this document are not aware of mDNS implementation that terminate their mDNS messages
on L2 ports instead of the subnet level. If mDNS was used as the ACP discovery mechanism on
an ACP capable (L3)/L2 switch as outlined in , then this would
be necessary to implement. It is likely that termination of mDNS messages could only be applied to
all mDNS messages from such a port, which would then make it necessary to software forward any non-ACP
related mDNS messages to maintain prior non-ACP mDNS functionality. Adding support for ACP into such
L2 switches with mDNS could therefore create regression problems for prior mDNS functionality on those nodes.
With low performance of software forwarding in many L2 switches, this could also make the ACP
risky to support on such L2 switches.LLDP was not considered because of the above mentioned issues. mDNS was not selected
because of the above L2 mDNS considerations and because of the following additional points:If mDNS was not already existing in a node, it would be more work to implement than
DULL GRASP, and if an existing implementation of mDNS was used, it would likely be more code
space than a separate implementation of DULL GRASP or a shared implementation of DULL
GRASP and GRASP in the ACP.This section motivates why RPL - "IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks ( was chosen as the default (and in this specification only) routing protocol for the ACP. The choice and above explained profile was derived from a pre-standard implementation of ACP that was successfully deployed in operational networks.Requirements for routing in the ACP are:
Self-management: The ACP must build automatically, without human intervention. Therefore routing protocol must also work completely automatically. RPL is a simple, self-managing protocol, which does not require zones or areas; it is also self-configuring, since configuration is carried as part of the protocol (see Section 6.7.6 of ).Scale: The ACP builds over an entire domain, which could be a large enterprise or service provider network. The routing protocol must therefore support domains of 100,000 nodes or more, ideally without the need for zoning or separation into areas. RPL has this scale property. This is based on extensive use of default routing. RPL also has other scalability improvements, such as selecting only a subset of peers instead of all possible ones, and trickle support for information synchronization.Low resource consumption: The ACP supports traditional network infrastructure, thus runs in addition to traditional protocols. The ACP, and specifically the routing protocol must have low resource consumption both in terms of memory and CPU requirements. Specifically, at edge nodes, where memory and CPU are scarce, consumption should be minimal. RPL builds a destination-oriented directed acyclic graph (DODAG), where the main resource consumption is at the root of the DODAG. The closer to the edge of the network, the less state needs to be maintained. This adapts nicely to the typical network design. Also, all changes below a common parent node are kept below that parent node.Support for unstructured address space: In the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure, node addresses are identifiers, and may not be assigned in a topological way. Also, nodes may move topologically, without changing their address. Therefore, the routing protocol must support completely unstructured address space. RPL is specifically made for mobile ad-hoc networks, with no assumptions on topologically aligned addressing.Modularity: To keep the initial implementation small, yet allow later for more complex methods, it is highly desirable that the routing protocol has a simple base functionality, but can import new functional modules if needed. RPL has this property with the concept of "objective function", which is a plugin to modify routing behavior.Extensibility: Since the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure is a new concept, it is likely that changes in the way of operation will happen over time. RPL allows for new objective functions to be introduced later, which allow changes to the way the routing protocol creates the DAGs.Multi-topology support: It may become necessary in the future to support more than one DODAG for different purposes, using different objective functions. RPL allow for the creation of several parallel DODAGs, should this be required. This could be used to create different topologies to reach different roots.No need for path optimization: RPL does not necessarily compute the optimal path between any two nodes. However, the ACP does not require this today, since it carries mainly non-delay-sensitive feedback loops. It is possible that different optimization schemes become necessary in the future, but RPL can be expanded (see point "Extensibility" above).IP multicast is not used by the ACP because the ANI (Autonomic Networking Infrastructure) itself does not require IP multicast
but only service announcement/discovery. Using IP multicast for that would have made it
necessary to develop a zero-touch auto configuring solution for ASM (Any Source Multicast - the original form of IP multicast defined in ), which
would be quite complex and difficult to justify. One aspect of complexity
where no attempt at a solution has been described
in IETF documents is the automatic-selection of
routers that should be PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Rendezvous Points (RPs) (see ). The other aspects of complexity
are the implementation of MLD (), PIM-SM and Anycast-RP (see ). If those implementations already
exist in a product, then they would be very likely tied to accelerated forwarding
which consumes hardware resources, and that in return is difficult to justify as a cost
of performing only service discovery.Some future ASA may need high performance in-network data replication. That is the case
when the use of IP multicast is justified. Such an ASA can then use service discovery
from ACP GRASP, and then they do not need ASM but only SSM (Source Specific Multicast, see )
for the IP multicast replication. SSM itself can simply be enabled in the Data-Plane
(or even in an update to the ACP) without any other configuration than just enabling it
on all nodes and only requires a simpler version of MLD (see ).LSP (Link State Protocol) based IGP routing protocols typically have a mechanism to
flood information, and such a mechanism could be used to flood GRASP objectives by
defining them to be information of that IGP. This would be a possible optimization
in future variations of the ACP that do use an LSP routing protocol. Note though that
such a mechanism would not work easily for GRASP M_DISCOVERY messages which are intelligently
(constrained) flooded not across the whole ACP, but only up to a node where a responder is found.
We do expect that many future services in ASA will have only few consuming ASA, and for those cases,
M_DISCOVERY is the more efficient method than flooding across the whole domain.Because the ACP uses RPL, one desirable future extension is to use RPLs existing
notion of loop-free distribution trees (DODAG) to make GRASPs flooding more efficient
both for M_FLOOD and M_DISCOVERY) See how this will be
specifically beneficial when using NBMA interfaces. This
is not currently specified in this document because it is not quite clear yet what
exactly the implications are to make GRASP flooding depend on RPL DODAG convergence
and how difficult it would be to let GRASP flooding access the DODAG information.The mechanism described in the normative part of this document to support multiple different ACP secure channel protocols without a single network wide MTI protocol is important to allow extending secure ACP channel protocols beyond what is specified in this document, but it will run into problem if it would be used for multiple protocols:The need to potentially have multiple of these security associations even temporarily run in parallel to determine which of them works best does not support the most lightweight implementation options.The simple policy of letting one side (Alice) decide what is best may not lead to the mutual best result.The two limitations can easier be solved if the solution was more modular and as few as possible initial secure channel negotiation protocols would be used, and these protocols would then take on the responsibility to support more flexible objectives to negotiate the mutually preferred ACP security channel protocol.IKEv2 is the IETF standard protocol to negotiate network security associations. It is meant to be extensible, but it is unclear whether it would be feasible to extend IKEv2 to support possible future requirements for ACP secure channel negotiation:Consider the simple case where the use of native IPsec vs. IPsec via GRE is to be negotiated and the objective is the maximum throughput. Both sides would indicate some agreed upon performance metric and the preferred encapsulation is the one with the higher performance of the slower side. IKEv2 does not support negotiation with this objective.Consider DTLS and some form of MacSec are to be added as negotiation options - and the performance objective should work across all IPsec, dDTLS and MacSec options. In the case of MacSEC, the negotiation would also
need to determine a key for the peering. It is unclear if it would be even appropriate to consider
extending the scope of negotiation in IKEv2 to those cases. Even if feasible to define, it is unclear if
implementations of IKEv2 would be eager to adopt those type of extension given the long cycles of security
testing that necessarily goes along with core security protocols such as IKEv2 implementations.A more modular alternative to extending IKEv2 could be to layer a modular negotiation mechanism on top of
the multitude of existing or possible future secure channel protocols. For this, GRASP over TLS could be
considered as a first ACP secure channel negotiation protocol. The following are initial considerations for
such an approach. A full specification is subject to a separate document:To explicitly allow negotiation of the ACP channel protocol, GRASP over a TLS connection using the GRASP_LISTEN_PORT and the nodes and peers link-local IPv6 address is used. When Alice and Bob support GRASP negotiation, they do prefer it over any other non-explicitly negotiated security association protocol and should wait trying any non-negotiated ACP channel protocol until after it is clear that GRASP/TLS will not work to the peer.When Alice and Bob successfully establish the GRASP/TSL session, they will negotiate the channel mechanism to use using objectives such as performance and perceived quality of the security. After agreeing on a channel mechanism, Alice and Bob start the selected Channel protocol. Once the secure channel protocol is successfully running, the GRASP/TLS connection can be kept alive or timed out as long as the selected channel protocol has a secure association between Alice and Bob. When it terminates, it needs to be re-negotiated via GRASP/TLS.Notes:Negotiation of a channel type may require IANA assignments of code points.TLS is subject to reset attacks, which IKEv2 is not. Normally, ACP connections (as specified in this document) will be over link-local addresses so the attack surface for this one issue in TCP should be reduced (note that this may not be true when ACP is tunneled as described in .GRASP packets received inside a TLS connection established for GRASP/TLS ACP negotiation are assigned to a separate GRASP domain unique to that TLS connection.There is a wide range of setting up different ACP solution by appropriately using CAs and the domain and rsub elements in the domain information field of the domain certificate. We summarize these options here as they have been explained in different parts of the document in before and discuss possible and desirable extensions:An ACP domain is the set of all ACP nodes using certificates from the same CA using the same domain field. GRASP inside the ACP is run across all transitively connected ACP nodes in a domain.The rsub element in the domain information field permits the use of addresses from different ULA prefixes. One use case is to create multiple physical networks that initially may be separated with one ACP domain but different routing subdomains, so that all nodes can mutual trust their ACP domain certificates (not depending on rsub) and so that they could connect later together into a contiguous ACP network.One instance of such a use case is an ACP for regions interconnected via a non-ACP enabled core, for example due to the absence of product support for ACP on the core nodes. ACP connect configurations as defined in this document can be used to extend and interconnect those ACP islands to the NOC and merge them into a single ACP when later that product support gap is closed.Note that RPL scales very well. It is not necessary to use multiple routing subdomains to scale ACP domains in a way it would be possible if other routing protocols where used. They exist only as options for the above mentioned reasons.If different ACP domains are to be created that should not allow to connect to each other by default, these ACP domains simply need to have different domain elements in the domain information field. These domain elements can be arbitrary, including subdomains of one another: Domains "example.com" and "research.example.com" are separate domains if both are domain elements in the domain information element of certificates.It is not necessary to have a separate CA for different ACP domains: an operator can use a single CA to sign certificates for multiple ACP domains that are not allowed to connect to each other because the checks for ACP adjacencies includes comparison of the domain part.If multiple independent networks choose the same domain name but had their own CA, these would not form a single ACP domain because of CA mismatch. Therefore there is no problem in choosing domain names that are potentially also used by others. Nevertheless it is highly recommended to use domain names that one can have high probability to be unique. It is recommended to use domain names that start with a DNS domain names owned by the assigning organization and unique within it. For example "acp.example.com" if you own "example.com".Intent is the architecture component of autonomic networks according to
that allows operators to issue policies to
the network. In a simple instance, Intent could simply be policies flooded across ACP GRASP
and interpreted on every ACP node.One concern for future definitions of Intent solutions is the problem of circular dependencies
when expressing Intent policies about the ACP itself.For example, Intent could indicate the desire to build an ACP across all domains
that have a common parent domain (without relying on the rsub/routing-subdomain
solution defined in this document). For example ACP nodes with domain "example.com",
nodes of "example.com", "access.example.com", "core.example.com" and "city.core.example.com"
should all establish one single ACP.If each domain has its own source of Intent, then the Intent would simply have to
allow adding the peer domains trust anchors (CA) and domain names to the ACP domain membership check
() so that nodes from those other nodes are accepted as ACP peers.If this Intent was to be originated only from one domain, it could likely not be made
to work because the other domains will not build any ACP connection amongst each other,
whether they use the same or different CA due to the ACP domain membership check.If the domains use the same CA one could change the ACP setup to permit for the
ACP to be established between the two ACP nodes even when the acp-domain-names of the
peers are different, but only for the purpose of disseminating limited information,
such as Intent, but not to set up full ACP connectivity, specifically not RPL routing
and passing of arbitrary GRASP information. Unless the Intent policies permit this
to happen across domain boundaries.This type of approach where the ACP first allows Intent to operate and only then
sets up the rest of ACP connectivity based on Intent policy could also be used to
enable Intent policies that would limit functionality across the ACP inside a domain,
as long as no policy would disturb the operations of Intent. For example to limit
reachability across the ACP to certain type of nodes or locations of nodes.The ACP as specified in this document is very explicit about the choice of options to
allow interoperable implementations. The choices made may not be the best for all environments,
but the concepts used by the ACP can be used to build derived solutions:The ACP specifies the use of ULA and deriving its prefix from the domain name
so that no address allocation is required to deploy the ACP. The ACP will equally
work not using ULA but any other /48 IPv6 prefix. This prefix could simply be a configuration
of the ACP registrars (for example when using BRSKI) to enroll the domain certificates - instead
of the ACP registrar deriving the /48 ULA prefix from the AN domain name.Some solutions may already have an auto-addressing scheme, for example derived from
existing unique device identifiers (e.g., MAC addresses). In those cases it may not be desirable
to assign addresses to devices via the ACP address information field in the way described
in this document. The certificate may simply serve to identify the ACP domain,
and the address field could be empty/unused. The only fix required in the remaining
way the ACP operate is to define another element in the domain certificate for
the two peers to decide who is Alice and who is Bob during secure channel building.
Note though that future work may leverage the acp address to authenticate "ownership"
of the address by the device. If the address used by a device is derived from some
pre-existing permanent local ID (such as MAC address), then it would be useful to
store that address in the certificate using the format of the access address information
field or in a similar way.The ACP is defined as a separate VRF because it intends to support well managed
networks with a wide variety of configurations. Therefore, reliable,
configuration-indestructible connectivity cannot be achieved from the Data-Plane itself.
In solutions where all transit connectivity impacting functions are fully automated (including security),
indestructible and resilient, it would be possible to eliminate the need for the ACP to be a separate VRF.
Consider the most simple example system in which there is no separate Data-Plane, but the ACP is the Data-Plane. Add
BRSKI, and it becomes a fully autonomic network - except that it does not support
automatic addressing for user equipment. This gap can then be closed for example by adding a
solution derived from .TCP/TLS as the protocols to provide reliability and security to GRASP in the ACP
may not be the preferred choice in constrained networks. For example, CoAP/DTLS
(Constrained Application Protocol) may be preferred where they are already used,
allowing to reduce the additional code space footprint for the ACP on
those devices. Because the transport for GRASP is not only hop-by-hop, but end-to-end
across the ACP, this would require the definition of an incompatible variant of the
ACP. Non-constrained devices could support both variants (the ACP as defined here, and
one using CoAP/DTLS for GRASP), and the variant used in a deployment could be chosen
for example through a parameter of the domain certificate. The routing protocol chosen by the ACP design (RPL) does explicitly not optimize
for shortest paths and fastest convergence. Variations of the ACP may want to use a
different routing protocol or introduce more advanced RPL profiles.Variations such as what routing protocol to use, or whether to instantiate an ACP
in a VRF or (as suggested above) as the actual Data-Plane, can be automatically chosen
in implementations built to support multiple options by deriving them from future parameters
in the certificate. Parameters in certificates should be limited to those that would
not need to be changed more often than certificates would need to be updated anyhow;
Or by ensuring that these parameters can be provisioned before the
variation of an ACP is activated in a node. Using BRSKI, this could be done for example
as additional follow-up signaling directly after the certificate enrollment, still
leveraging the BRSKI TLS connection and therefore not introducing any additional
connectivity requirements.Last but not least, secure channel protocols including their encapsulation are
easily added to ACP solutions. ACP hop-by-hop network layer secure channels could
also be replaced by end-to-end security plus other means for infrastructure
protection. Any future network OAM should always use end-to-end security anyhow and can
leverage the domain certificates and is therefore not dependent on security to
be provided for by ACP secure channels.Routing in the ACP according to this specification only leverages the
standard RPL mechanism of route optimization, e.g. keeping only routes that
are not towards the RPL root. This is known to scale to networks with 20,000 or more nodes.
There is no auto-aggregation of routes for /48 ULA prefixes (when using rsub
in the domain information field) and/or Zone-ID based prefixes.Automatic assignment of Zone-ID and auto-aggregation of routes could
be achieved for example by configuring zone-boundaries, announcing via GRASP
into the zones the zone parameters (zone-ID and /48 ULA prefix) and auto-aggrating
routes on the zone-boundaries. Nodes would assign their Zone-ID and potentially
even /48 prefix based on the GRASP announcements.As described in , the ACP depends on the
Data-Plane to establish IPv6 link-local addressing on interfaces. Using a separate
MAC address for the ACP allows to fully isolate the ACP from the data plane in
a way that is compatible with this specification. It is also an ideal option
when using Single-root input/output virtualization (SR-IOV) in an implementation
to isolate the ACP (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-root_input/output_virtualization) because
different SR-IOV interfaces use different MAC addresses.When additional MAC address(es) are not available to the ACP, separation of the
ACP could be done at different demux points. The same subnet interface could have
a separate IPv6 IPv6 interface for the ACP and Data-Plane and therefore separate
link-local addresses for both, where the ACP interface is non-configurable on
the data-plane. This too would be compatible with this specification and not
impact interoperability.An option that would require additional specification is to use a different
Ethertype from 0x86DD (IPv6) to encapsulate IPv6 packets for the ACP. This would
be a similar approach as used for IP authentication packets in
that they use the Extensible Authentication Protocol over Local Area Network (EAPoL)
ethertype (0x88A2).Note that in the case of ANI nodes, all the above considerations equally
apply to the encapsulation of BRSKI packets including GRASP used for BRSKI.Future work should define YANG () data model
and/or node internal APIs to monitor and manage the ACP.The elements to include into this model/API include the
ACP Adjacency Table () and ACP GRASP.
..... USA ...... ..... Europe ......
NOC1 NOC2
| |
| metric 100 |
ACP1 --------------------------- ACP2 .
| | . WAN
| metric 10 metric 20 | . Core
| | .
ACP3 --------------------------- ACP4 .
| metric 100 |
| | .
| | . Sites
ACP10 ACP11 .
The profile for RPL specified in this document builds only one spanning-tree pathset to a root (NOC). In the presence of multiple NOCs, routing toward the non-root NOCs may be suboptimal. shows an extreme example. Assuming that node ACP1 becomes the RPL root, traffic between ACP11 and NOC2 will pass through ACP4-ACP3-ACP1-ACP2 instead of ACP4-ACP2 because the RPL calculated DODAG/routes are shortest paths towards the RPL root.To overcome these limitations, extensions/modifications to the RPL profile can provide optimality for multiple NOCs. This requires utilizing Data-Plane artifact including IPinIP encap/decap on ACP routers and processing of IPv6 RPI headers. Alternatively, (Src,Dst) routing table entries could be used.Flooding of ACP GRASP messages can be further constrained and therefore optimized by flooding only via links that are part of the RPL DODAG.ACP connect is an explicit mechanism to "leak" ACP traffic explicitly (for example
in a NOC). It is therefore also a possible security gap when it is easy to enable ACP
connect on arbitrary compromised ACP nodes.One simple solution is to define an extension in the ACP certificates ACP information
field indicating the permission for ACP connect to be configured on that ACP node. This
could similarily be done to decide whether a node is permitted to be a registrar or not.Tying the permitted "roles" of an ACP node to the ACP domain certificate provides
fairly strong protection against misconfiguration, but is still subject to code
modifications.Another interesting role to assign to certificates is that of a NOC node. This would allow to
limit certain type of connections such as OAM TLS connections to only NOC initiator
or responders.In this specification, the ACP can only establish autonomic connectivity across L2
hops and only explicitly confiured options to tunnel across L3. Future work should
specify mechanisms to automatically tunnel ACP across L3 networks. A hub&spoke
option would allow to tunnel across the Internet to a cloud or central instance of the ACP,
a peer-to-peer tunneling mechanism could tunnel ACP islands across an L3VPN infrastructure. describes diagnostics options that can be done
without changing the external, interoperability affecting characteristics of ACP implementation.Even better diagnostics of ACP operations is possible with additional
signaling extensions, such as:Consider if LLDP should be a recommended functionality for ANI devices
to improve diagnostics, and if so, which information elements it should
signal (insecure). Includes potentially new information elements.In alternative to LLDP, A DULL GRASP diagnostics objective could
be defined to carry these information elements.The IDevID of BRSKI pledges should be included in the selected
insecure diagnostics option.A richer set of diagnostics information should be made available
via the secured ACP channels, using either single-hop GRASP or
network wide "topology discovery" mechanisms.