LMAP Framework draft-ietf-lmap-framework-01 Philip Eardley Al Morton, Marcelo Bagnulo, Trevor Burbridge, Paul Aitken, Aamer Akhter 6 th November 2013 Vancouver,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CONEX BoF. Welcome to CONEX! Chairs: –Leslie Daigle –Philip Eardley Scribe Note well MORE INFO: -ECN.
Advertisements

MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting #5 Nov 8 th & 10 th 2010 Beijing, ietf-79 Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley.
WELCOME! Multipath TCP Implementors Workshop Saturday 24 th July Maastricht Philip Eardley MPTCP WG Co-chair.
PAWS BOF Protocol to Access White Space DB IETF 80 Gabor Bajko, Brian Rosen.
External User Security Model (EUSM) for SNMPv3 draft-kaushik-snmp-external-usm-00.txt November, 2004.
EAP Channel Bindings Charles Clancy Katrin Hoeper IETF 76 Hiroshima, Japan November 08-13, 2009.
Progress Report: Metering NSLP (M-NSLP) 66th IETF meeting, NSIS WG.
Chapter 19: Network Management Business Data Communications, 5e.
<<Date>><<SDLC Phase>>
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting #3 July 27 th & 29 th 2010 Maastricht, ietf-78 Philip Eardley Yoshifumi Nishida.
Identity Management Based on P3P Authors: Oliver Berthold and Marit Kohntopp P3P = Platform for Privacy Preferences Project.
IPv4 and IPv6 Mobility Support Using MPLS and MP-BGP draft-berzin-malis-mpls-mobility-00 Oleg Berzin, Andy Malis {oleg.berzin,
Chapter 19: Network Management Business Data Communications, 4e.
1 ITC242 – Introduction to Data Communications Week 12 Topic 18 Chapter 19 Network Management.
NSIS Transport Layer draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-00.txt Slides:
Initial slides for Layered Service Architecture
Framework & Requirements for an Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service Networks ANCP WG IETF 70 – Vancouver draft-ietf-ancp-framework-04.txt.
P2PSIP Charter Proposal Many people helped write this charter…
IETF 77 1 HIP mobility (RFC 5206bis) issue review March 31, 2011 Tom Henderson (editor)
Large Scale Broadband Measurement Activities within the IETF, Broadband Forum and EU Leone project Trevor Burbridge, 16 th May 2013 The research leading.
MANET Where are we? Where are we going? Adrian Farrel Routing AD Honolulu – November 2015 – IETF-91.
IEEE R lmap 23 Feb 2015.
and LMAP liaison Document Number: IEEE R0
Information Model for LMAP draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-00 IETF 89, London, March 2014 Trevor Burbridge, BT Philip Eardley, BT Marcelo Bagnulo Braun,
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-01) IETF 89, March 7, 2014 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure
ISM 5316 Week 3 Learning Objectives You should be able to: u Define and list issues and steps in Project Integration u List and describe the components.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP Interim meeting #3 20 th October 2011 audio Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley.
LMAP WG IETF 89, London, UK Dan Romascanu Jason Weil.
July 27, 2009IETF NEA Meeting1 NEA Working Group IETF 75 Co-chairs: Steve Hanna
RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements November 18, 2008 David B. Nelson IETF 73 Minneapolis.
IAB Report Technical Plenary IETF 81 July 25, 2011.
Information Model for LMAP draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-02 and proposed changes for 03 IETF 91, Honolulu, November 2014 Trevor Burbridge, BT 1.
PAWS: Security Considerations Yizhuang WU, Yang CUI PAWS WG
AAA and Mobile IPv6 Franck Le AAA WG - IETF55. Why Diameter support for Mobile IPv6? Mobile IPv6 is a routing protocol and does not deal with issues related.
PAWS Protocol to Access White Space DB IETF 81 Gabor Bajko, Brian Rosen.
Framework & Requirements for an Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service Networks IETF 66 - ANCP WG July 9-14, 2006 draft-ooghe-ancp-framework-00.txt.
GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and Requirements draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00.txt Hannes Tschofenig, Henning Schulzrinne.
Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP) BOF Gonzalo Camarillo Ericsson Yunfei Zhang China Mobile IETF76, Hiroshima, Japan 13:00~15:00 THURSDAY, Nov 12,
CONEX BoF. Welcome to CONEX! Chairs: –Leslie Daigle –Philip Eardley Scribe Note well.
Interactive Connectivity Establishment : ICE
1 Systems Analysis and Design in a Changing World, Tuesday, January 23, 2007.
1 Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) 66th IETF – Montreal, Canada Thursday, June 13, 2006, 13:00-15:00 (519A) Chairs: –Al Morton – If.
Slide 1 2/22/2016 Policy-Based Management With SNMP SNMPCONF Working Group - Interim Meeting May 2000 Jon Saperia.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting #1 Nov 9 th, 2009 Hiroshima, ietf-76.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting #5 Nov 8 th & 10 th 2010 Beijing, ietf-79 Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley.
REST Style Large Measurement Platform Protocol draft-liu-lmap-rest-00.txt Dapeng Liu(Presenter) Lingli Deng China Mobile Shihui Duan CATR Cathy Li China.
SIPPING Drafts Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Conferencing Package Issues Only one – scope Depends on broader work in conferencing May include –Participant.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP WG meeting Tuesday 23 rd & Friday 26 th March 2010 Anaheim, ietf-77.
LMAP WG IETF 90, TORONTO, CA Dan Romascanu Jason Weil.
Requirements for PCE Discovery draft-leroux-pce-discovery-reqs-00.txt Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom) Paul Mabey (Qwest) Eiji Oki (NTT) Ting Wo Chung.
and LMAP liaison Document Number: IEEE R0 Date Submitted: Source: Antonio BovoVoice:
Reducing Unwanted Communications in SIP (RUCUS) BOF Hannes Tschofenig Francois Audet.
Information Model for LMAP draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-02 (and beyond!) IETF Interim, Dublin, September 2014 Trevor Burbridge, BT 1.
Information Model for LMAP draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-03 and proposed changes for 04 IETF Interim, 12 th February 2015 Trevor Burbridge, BT 1.
Applicability Statement of NSIS Protocols in Mobile Environments draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-06.txt Takako Sanda, Xiaoming Fu, Seong-Ho.
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-00) IETF 87, November 4, 2013 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
Doc.: IEEE /0122r0 Submission January 2012 Dorothy Stanley, Aruba NetworksSlide 1 IEEE IETF Liaison Report Date: Authors:
Thoughts on the LMAP protocol(s) LMAP Interim meeting, Dublin, 15 th September 2014 Philip Eardley Al Morton Jason Weil 1.
1 Charter 2.0 chairs. 2 Description of Working Group The Working Group will focus on enabling IPv6 over the TSCH mode of the.
LMAP BoF 1. ISP use case 2. Framework
Phil Hunt, Hannes Tschofenig
56th IETF syslog WG Chair: Chris Lonvick
A registry for IPPM metrics
LMAP WG - IETF 88 draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-00
Rest Style Large MeAsurement Platform Protocol
CONEX BoF.
and LMAP liaison Document Number: IEEE R0
1 Guidelines for Autonomic Service Agents draft-carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines-00 Brian Carpenter Sheng Jiang IETF 97 November
and LMAP liaison Document Number: IEEE R0
Presentation transcript:

LMAP Framework draft-ietf-lmap-framework-01 Philip Eardley Al Morton, Marcelo Bagnulo, Trevor Burbridge, Paul Aitken, Aamer Akhter 6 th November 2013 Vancouver, IETF-88 1

Framework Milestone – Dec 2013 Submit the LMAP Framework I-D to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFC Reviews needed!! 2

Framework Merger of 3 individual i-ds – Terminology from eardley-lmap-terminology – Simplifying constraints from eardley-lmap-framework – Detailed discussion of LMAP components from akhter-lmap-framework Several aspects updated, – Introduced protocol model "an architectural model for how the protocol operates... a short description of the system in overview form,... Trying to keep this aligned with burbridge-lmap-information-model-01 – Better discussion about bootstrapping, starting & stopping tests, etc – New section on privacy considerations Many aspects unchanged, – For instance, Constraints: Measurement system is under the direction of a single organisation Each MA may only have a single Controller at any point in time Introduced a protocol model – Bootstrapping; control; report; Better discussion about bootstrapping, starting & stopping tests… 3

Bootstrapping | Measurement | | Agent | (Initial Controller details: address or FQDN, -> security credentials) | Initial | | Controller | <- (register) Controller details: address or FQDN, -> security credentials | | | Controller | <- register MA-ID, (Group-ID, report?) -> 4 Notation: (optional)

Bootstrapping | Measurement | | Agent | (Initial Controller details: address or FQDN, -> security credentials) | Initial | | Controller | <- (register) Controller details: address or FQDN, -> security credentials | | | Controller | <- register MA-ID, (Group-ID, report?) -> 5 Notation: (optional) May be a device/access specific mechanism Typically there are NAT interactions (not shown)

Control protocol | | | Measurement | | Controller |===================================| Agent | Instruction: [(Measurement Task (parameters)), -> (Measurement Schedule), (Report Channel(s))] <- ACK (Capability request) -> <- List of Measurement Methods ACK -> Suppress -> <- Failure report: (reason) ACK -> 6 Notation: [potentially repeated] (optional)

Control protocol | | | Measurement | | Controller |===================================| Agent | Instruction: [(Measurement Task (parameters)), -> (Measurement Schedule), (Report Channel(s))] <- ACK (Capability request) -> <- List of Measurement Methods ACK -> Suppress -> <- Failure report: (reason) ACK -> 7 Nothing about progress of M. Task Notation: [potentially repeated] (optional)

Control protocol | | | Measurement | | Controller |===================================| Agent | Instruction: [(Measurement Task (parameters)), -> (Measurement Schedule), (Report Channel(s))] <- ACK (Capability request) -> <- List of Measurement Methods ACK -> Suppress -> <- Failure report: (reason) ACK -> 8 No negotiation Can report to >1 Collector Generalised to ‘Channel’ in latest Info Model i-d Notation: [potentially repeated] (optional)

Control protocol | | | Measurement | | Controller |===================================| Agent | Instruction: [(Measurement Task (parameters)), -> (Measurement Schedule), (Report Channel(s))] <- ACK (Capability request) -> <- List of Measurement Methods ACK -> Suppress -> <- Failure report: (reason) ACK -> 9 Controller asks MA to stop doing M. Tasks Not ACK’d Open question: Details of suppress (amber state? Time limit?) Notation: [potentially repeated] (optional)

Control protocol | | | Measurement | | Controller |===================================| Agent | Instruction: [(Measurement Task (parameters)), -> (Measurement Schedule), (Report Channel(s))] <- ACK (Capability request) -> <- List of Measurement Methods ACK -> Suppress -> <- Failure report: (reason) ACK -> 10 1.MA cannot action Instruction 2.M. Task could not be executed Called ‘logging’ in Info model i-d Notation: [potentially repeated] (optional)

Report protocol | | | Measurement | | Controller |===================================| Agent | <- Report: [MA-ID &/or Group-ID, Measurement Results, Measurement Task] ACK -> 11 Notation: [potentially repeated]

Report protocol | | | Measurement | | Controller |===================================| Agent | <- Report: [MA-ID &/or Group-ID, Measurement Results, Measurement Task] ACK -> 12 Notation: [potentially repeated] Open question: How /if label M. Results impacted (potentially?) by cross-traffic

New privacy section Responds to Charter requirements Mostly follows outline of RFC 6973 & benefits greatly from its timely publication – "Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols" Please review the section! Open question: should it be removed to a separate draft Open question: how useful is a Group-ID? 13

New privacy section Privacy Considerations for LMAP Categories of Entities with Information of Interest Examples of Sensitive Information Key Distinction Between Active and Passive Measurement Tasks Communications Model (for Privacy) Controller Measurement Agent Collector Measurement Agent Active Measurement Peer Measurement Agent Passive Measurement Peer Measurement Agent Result Storage and Reporting Threats Surveillance Stored Data Compromise Correlation and Identification Secondary Use and Disclosure Mitigations Data Minimization Anonymity Pseudonymity Other Mitigations The potential role of a Group-ID for privacy

Beyond scope of lmap 1.coordination process between MAs. 2.interactions between the Collector and Controller. 3.coordination between different measurement systems 1.Including 2 independent MAs in a home 4.user-initiated measurements 15

Next steps Please review! (default) we’ll create a separate i-d for privacy section (default) we’ll ask for WGLC on next rev 16

Spare slides 17

Overall measurement system 18 ^ | IPPM Test Scope >| Measurement | | Measurement | v | | Agent | Traffic | Peer | ^ | | | ^ | | | Instruction | | Report | | | | | | | | | | v LMAP | Scope | | Controller | | Collector | | | v | ^ ^ | ^ | | | | | | | | | | | | v | | |Initializer| |Parameter|--->|Analysis|<---|Repository| Out |DataBase | | tools | of Scope | v Figure 1: Schematic of main elements of an LMAP-based measurement system (showing the elements in and out of the scope of the LMAP WG)