Inter-Domain DOTS Use Cases - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

inter domain dots use cases
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Inter-Domain DOTS Use Cases - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Inter-Domain DOTS Use Cases draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-00 Kaname Nishizuka, NTT Communications Nov. 2015 IETF94@yokohama Draft Overview Motivation The volume of DDoS attack will exceed available anti- DDoS capability by


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Inter-Domain DOTS Use Cases

draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-00

Kaname Nishizuka, NTT Communications

  • Nov. 2015 IETF94@yokohama
slide-2
SLIDE 2

Draft Overview

Motivation

The volume of DDoS attack will exceed available anti- DDoS capability by one organization. Inter-domain cooperative DDoS mitigation is essential.

Describe DDoS protection scenario in two stages

Provisioning stage & Signaling stage Based on our production DDoS protection service Willing to generalize it to be more vendor-agnostic to fit to DOTS.

Describe three Inter-domain usecases

slide-3
SLIDE 3

NW1

Scenario Overview

Flow Collector DDoS Mitigator

NW2

(1) (2) (3) (4)

(1)Provisioning stage Provisioning of DDoS protection capability (2) DDoS Detection

  • Automatic detection
  • Automatic/manual trigger of DDoS

protection (3)Signaling stage “Call for help” signaling from supplicant (=flowcollector, in our case) to DDoS mitigator (4)Mitigation action from the mitigator to NW elements

  • BGP injection(RTBH/Diversion)
  • Controlling multi-vender mitigation box
  • Changing ACL of routers
  • Flowspec advertisement

Attackers Victim

DDoS

Scope of Dots

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Provisioning Stage

What information should be confirmed between DDoS mitigator and supplicant in advance?

  • 1. Protection capability
  • 2. Restriction on the range of IP addresses and ports
  • 3. Return path information of the mitigated traffic
  • 4. Authorization information to restrict the

supplicant

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Signaling Stage

Mandatory information

IP address of defense target Instruction (Start/Stop) Authorization information

Optional information

Traffic volume, type of attack etc,…

Can be used for choice of DDoS protection methods Though optional information is useful, let leave the final decision to upper DDoS protection entity.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Inter-domain usecase1: Multi-home model

Domain A

Mitigator (dots server)

NW

Attackers Victim

DDoS

Domain B

Supplicant (dots client) Mitigator (dots server) Attackers

DDoS DDoS

  • ne supplicant

multi mitigators The common signaling protocol can protect a service in one- stop by protecting both links connected to different domain.

dots signaling

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Inter-domain usecase2: Cloud model

Domain A Cloud type service

Attackers

Domain B

Supplicant (dots client) Mitigator (dots server) Attackers Supplicant (dots client) Victim Victim

DDoS DDoS

multi supplicants

  • ne mitigator

Cloud type of DDoS mitigation service provides common signaling interface, so any services in different domain can use the mitigator.

dots signaling

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Domain A Domain B

Inter-domain usecase3: Delegation model

Mitigator (dots server)

NW

DDoS

Supplicant (dots client) Mitigator (dots server/client) Attackers Victim

DDoS

a mitigator can be supplicant and vice versa. The mitigator in a domain can delegate the burden of protection to other domains by dots signaling.

dots signaling

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Domain A Domain B

Cooperative DDoS Mitigation with DOTS Signaling

NW

DDoS

Supplicant (dots client) Mitigator (dots server/client) Attackers Victim Mitigator (dots server/client)

NW

Supplicant (dots client) Victim Attackers dots signaling

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Nextstep

Improvements Align terminology with other drafts. Illustrate inter-domain usecase in more detail. Nextstep Can it be merged into one usecase draft?