draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-03.txt

ANIMA                                                  M. Behringer, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Informational                              B. Carpenter
Expires: December 19, 2015                             Univ. of Auckland
                                                               T. Eckert
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            L. Ciavaglia
                                                          Alcatel Lucent
                                                                  B. Liu
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           June 17, 2015


               A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking
                draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-03

Abstract

   This document describes a reference model for Autonomic Networking.
   The goal is to define how the various elements in an autonomic
   context work together, to describe their interfaces and relations.
   While the document is written as generally as possible, the initial
   solutions are limited to the chartered scope of the WG.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents



Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  The Network View  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The Autonomic Network Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Unconstrained AN Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Constrained AN Nodes (*)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Naming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Addressing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Signaling Between Autonomic Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.5.  Intent Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.6.  Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.7.  The Autonomic Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security and Trust Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Public Key Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Domain Certificate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  The MASA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.4.  Sub-Domains (*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.5.  Cross-Domain Functionality (*)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Autonomic Service Agents (ASA)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  General Description of an ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Specific ASAs for the Enrolment Process . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.2.1.  The Enrolment ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.2.2.  The Enrolment Proxy ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.2.3.  The Registrar ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Management and Programmability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  How an AN Network Is Managed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Intent (*)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.3.  Aggregated Reporting (*)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.4.  Feedback Loops to NOC(*)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.5.  APIs (*)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.6.  Data Model (*)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Coordination Between Autonomic Functions (*)  . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  The Coordination Problem (*)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  A Coordination Functional Block (*) . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Hybrid Approach with Non-Autonomic Functions (*)  . . . . . .  13
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13



Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


     10.1.  Threat Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   13. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   The document "Autonomic Networking - Definitions and Design Goals"
   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] explains the
   fundamental concepts behind Autonomic Networking, and defines the
   relevant terms in this space.  In section 5 it describes a high level
   reference model.  This document defines this reference model with
   more detail, to allow for functional and protocol specifications to
   be developed in an architecturally consistent, non-overlapping
   manner.  While the document is written as generally as possible, the
   initial solutions are limited to the chartered scope of the WG.

   As discussed in [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions], the
   goal of this work is not to focus exclusively on fully autonomic
   nodes or networks.  In reality, most networks will run with some
   autonomic functions, while the rest of the network is traditionally
   managed.  This reference model allows for this hybrid approach.

   This is a living document and will evolve with the technical
   solutions developed in the ANIMA WG.  Sections marked with (*) do not
   represent current charter items.  While this document must give a
   long term architectural view, not all functions will be standardized
   at the same time.

2.  The Network View

   This section describes the various elements in a network with
   autonomic functions, and how these entities work together, on a high
   level.  Subsequent sections explain the detailed inside view for each
   of the autonomic network elements, as well as the network functions
   (or interfaces) between those elements.

   Figure 1 shows the high level view of an Autonomic Network.  It
   consists of a number of autonomic nodes, which interact directly with
   each other.  Those autonomic nodes provide a common set of
   capabilities across the network, called the "Autonomic Networking
   Infrastructure" (ANI).  The ANI provides functions like naming,
   addressing, negotiation, synchronization, discovery and messaging.






Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   Autonomic functions typically span several, possibly all nodes in the
   network.  The atomic entities of an autonomic function are called the
   "Autonomic Service Agents" (ASA), which are instantiated on nodes.

   +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
   :            :       Autonomic Function 1        :                 :
   : ASA 1      :      ASA 1      :      ASA 1      :          ASA 1  :
   +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
                :                 :                 :
                :   +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - +  :
                :   :   Autonomic Function 2     :  :
                :   :  ASA 2      :      ASA 2   :  :
                :   +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - +  :
                :                 :                 :
   +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
   :                Autonomic Networking Infrastructure               :
   +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
   +--------+   :    +--------+   :    +--------+   :        +--------+
   | Node 1 |--------| Node 2 |--------| Node 3 |----...-----| Node n |
   +--------+   :    +--------+   :    +--------+   :        +--------+

             Figure 1: High level view of an Autonomic Network

   In a horizontal view, autonomic functions span across the network, as
   well as the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure.  In a vertical view,
   a node always implements the ANI, plus it may have one or several
   Autonomic Service Agents.

   The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (ANI) therefore is the
   foundation for autonomic functions.  The current charter of the ANIMA
   WG is to specify the ANI, using a few autonomic functions as use
   cases.

3.  The Autonomic Network Element

3.1.  Architecture

   This section describes an autonomic network element and its internal
   architecture.  The reference model explained in
   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] shows the sources of
   information that an autonomic service agent can leverage: Self-
   knowledge, network knowledge (through discovery), Intent, and
   feedback loops.  Fundamentally, there are two levels inside an
   autonomic node: the level of Autonomic Service Agents, and the level
   of the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure, with the former using the
   services of the latter.  Figure 2 illustrates this concept.





Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   +------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                                            |
   | +-----------+        +------------+        +------------+  |
   | | Autonomic |        | Autonomic  |        | Autonomic  |  |
   | | Service   |        | Service    |        | Service    |  |
   | | Agent 1   |        | Agent 2    |        | Agent 3    |  |
   | +-----------+        +------------+        +------------+  |
   |       ^                    ^                     ^         |
   | -  -  | -  - API level -  -| -  -  -  -  -  -  - |-  -  -  |
   |       V                    V                     V         |
   |------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Autonomic Networking Infrastructure                        |
   |    - Data structures (ex: certificates, peer information)  |
   |    - Autonomic Control Plane                               |
   |    - discovery, negotiation and synchronisation functions  |
   |    - Intent distribution                                   |
   |    - aggregated reporting and feedback loops               |
   |    - routing                                               |
   |------------------------------------------------------------|
   |             Basic Operating System Functions               |
   +------------------------------------------------------------+

                   Figure 2: Model of an autonomic node

   The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (lower part of Figure 2)
   contains node specific data structures, for example trust information
   about itself and its peers, as well as a generic set of functions,
   independent of a particular usage.  This infrastructure should be
   generic, and support a variety of Autonomic Service Agents (upper
   part of Figure 2).  The Autonomic Control Plane is the summary of all
   interactions of the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure with other
   nodes and services.

   The use cases of "Autonomics" such as self-management, self-
   optimisation, etc, are implemented as Autonomic Service Agents.  They
   use the services and data structures of the underlying autonomic
   networking infrastructure.  The underlying Autonomic Networking
   Infrastructure should itself be self-managing.

   The "Basic Operating System Functions" include the "normal OS",
   including the network stack, security functions, etc.

3.2.  Unconstrained AN Nodes

   Unconstrained nodes have the full ANI, with the full functionality
   (details to be worked out).  They support all the capabilities
   outlined in the rest of the document. [tbc]




Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


3.3.  Constrained AN Nodes (*)

   Constrained nodes have a reduced ANI, with a well-defined minimal
   functionality (details to be worked out): They do need to be able to
   join the network, and communicate with at least a helper node which
   has full ANI functionality.  Capabilities of constrained nodes need
   to be defined here. [tbc]

4.  The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure

   The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure provides a layer of common
   functionality across an Autonomic Network.  It comprises "must
   implement" functions and services, as well as extensions.

   An Autonomic Function, comprising of Autonomic Service Agents on
   nodes, can rely on the fact that all nodes in the network implement
   at least the "must implement" functions.

4.1.  Naming

   Inside a domain, each autonomic device needs a domain specific
   identifier. [tbc]

4.2.  Addressing

   Autonomic Service Agents (ASAs) need addressing to communicate with
   each other.  This section describes the addressing approach of the
   Autonomic Networking Infrastructure, used by ASAs.  It does NOT
   describe addressing approaches for the data plane of the network,
   which may be configured and managed in the traditional way.  ASAs may
   provide a service to negotiate address space, or addressing
   mechanisms for the date plane.  One use case for such an autonomic
   function is described in [I-D.jiang-auto-addr-management].  The
   addressing the ASAs use is in scope for this section, the address
   space they negotiate for the data plane is not.

   It is generally desirable to make the addressing scheme of the
   Autonomic Networking Infrastructure as self-managing (autonomic) as
   possible.

   This section is currently under discussion.  We currently believe
   that we should address the following questions:

   o  How addressing inside the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)
      [I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane] is assigned and
      managed autonomically.





Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   o  Whether, if there is no separated ACP, Autonomic Service Agents
      (ASAs) shall have their own address space, or whether they should
      use the address space configured by the administrator.

   o  How addressing is handled in the presence of non-autonomic nodes.

   o  Prefix assignment to interfaces.

   o  Whether links and link interfaces should get routable address
      space, or whether link local addressing is sufficient.

   o  How the address space used in the Autonomic Networking
      Infrastructure is assigned and managed.

   It is not clear at this point whether a specific address scheme
   should be included in this document, or whether this document should
   only define the requirements.  This is for further discussion.

   The document [I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing] describes one
   way to autonomically assign loopback addresses to autonomic nodes, in
   an autonomic, self-managed way.  Other ideas and suggestions are
   strongly encouraged.

4.3.  Discovery

   Traditionally, most of the information a node requires is provided
   through configuration or northbound interfaces.  An autonomic
   function should only minimally rely on such northbound interfaces,
   therefore it needs to discover resources in the network.  This
   section describes various discovery functions in an autonomic
   network.

   Discovering nodes and their properties: A core function to establish
   an autonomic domain is the discovery of autonomic nodes, primarily
   adjacent nodes.  This may either leverage existing neighbour
   discovery mechanisms, or new mechanisms.

   Discovering services: Network services such as AAA should also be
   discovered and not configured.  Service discovery is required for
   such tasks.  An autonomic network can either leverage existing
   service discovery functions, or build a new approach.

   Thus the discovery mechanism could either be fully integrated with
   negotiation and synchronization (next section) or could use an
   independent discovery mechanism such as DNS Service Discovery or
   Service Location Protocol.  This choice is made independently for
   each Autonomic Service Agent.




Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


4.4.  Signaling Between Autonomic Nodes

   Autonomic nodes must communicate with each other, for example to
   negotiate and/or synchronize network parameters of any kind and
   complexity.  This requires some form of signaling between autonomic
   nodes.  The document "A Generic Discovery and Negotiation Protocol
   for Autonomic Networking" [I-D.carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol]
   describes requirements for negotiation and synchronization in an
   autonomic network.  It also defines a protocol, GDNP, for this
   purpose, including an integrated but optional discovery protocol.

4.5.  Intent Distribution

   Intent is the policy language of an Autonomic Network, see
   Section 7.2 for general information on Intent.  The distribution of
   Intent is also a function of the Autonomic Control Plane.  Various
   methods can be used to distribute Intent across an autonomic domain.

4.6.  Routing

   All autonomic nodes in a domain must be able to communicate with each
   other, and with autonomic nodes outside their own domain.  Therefore,
   an Autonomic Control Plane relies on a routing function.  For
   Autonomic Networks to be interoperable, they must all support one
   common routing protocol.

4.7.  The Autonomic Control Plane

   The totality of autonomic interactions forms the "Autonomic Control
   Plane".  This control plane can be either implemented in the global
   routing table of a node, such as IGPs in today's networks; or it can
   be provided as an overlay network, as described in
   [I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane].

   The ACP can be operated in two ways: 1) as a separate virtual overlay
   network, as described in
   [I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. or 2), in the global
   routing table.  This sections discusses implications of both choices.

   Also: Need to address how a separated ACP and an inline ACP
   cooperate.

5.  Security and Trust Infrastructure

   An Autonomic Network is self-protecting.  All protocols are secure by
   default, without the requirement for the administrator to explicitly
   configure security.




Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   Autonomic nodes have direct interactions between themselves, which
   must be secured.  Since an autonomic network does not rely on
   configuration, it is not an option to configure for example pre-
   shared keys.  A trust infrastructure such as a PKI infrastructure
   must be in place.  This section describes the principles of this
   trust infrastructure.

   A completely autonomic way to automatically and securely deploy such
   a trust infrastructure is to set up a trust anchor for the domain,
   and then use an approach as in the document "Bootstrapping Key
   Infrastructures" [I-D.pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures].

5.1.  Public Key Infrastructure

   An autonomic domain uses a PKI model.  The root of trust is a
   certification authority (CA).  A registrar acts as a registration
   authority (RA).

   A minimum implementation of an autonomic domain contains one CA, one
   Registrar, and network elements.

5.2.  Domain Certificate

   We need to define how the fields in a domain certificate are to be
   used. [tbc]

5.3.  The MASA

   Explain briefly the function, point to
   [I-D.pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures]. [tbc]

5.4.  Sub-Domains (*)

   Explain how sub-domains are handled. (tbc)

5.5.  Cross-Domain Functionality (*)

   Explain how trust is handled between different domains. (tbc)

6.  Autonomic Service Agents (ASA)

   This section describes how autonomic services run on top of the
   Autonomic Networking Infrastructure.








Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


6.1.  General Description of an ASA

   general concepts, such as sitting on top of the ANI, etc.  Also needs
   to explain that on a constrained node (see Section 3.3) not all ASAs
   may run, so we have two classes of ASAs: Ones that run on an
   unconstrained node, and limited function ASAs that run also on
   constrained nodes.  We expect unconstrained nodes to support all
   ASAs.

6.2.  Specific ASAs for the Enrolment Process

   The following ASAs provide essential, required functionality in an
   autonomic network, and are therefor mandatory to implement on
   unconstrained autonomic nodes.

6.2.1.  The Enrolment ASA

   This section describes the function of an autonomic node to bootstrap
   into the domain with the help of an enrolment proxy (see previous
   section). [tbc]

6.2.2.  The Enrolment Proxy ASA

   This section describes the function of an autonomic node that helps a
   non-enrolled, adjacent devices to enrol into the domain. [tbc]

6.2.3.  The Registrar ASA

   This section describes the registrar function in an autonomic
   network.  It explains the tasks of a registrar element, and how
   registrars are placed in a network, redundancy between several, etc.
   [tbc]

7.  Management and Programmability

   This section describes how an Autonomic Network is managed, and
   programmed.

7.1.  How an AN Network Is Managed

   Explain co-existence of traditional methods (SNMP, syslog, NETCONF,
   etc) with new, autonomic methods.  Those are: Intent, Aggregated
   Reporting and feedback loops to the NOC. [tbc]








Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


7.2.  Intent (*)

   This section describes Intent, and how it is managed.  Explaining
   ingest of intent, distribution, the nature (on top of what's in
   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions]).  That intent is
   signed, time stamps, etc.  Probably pointing back to
   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions].  (Note intent
   distribution is handled in Section 4.5) [tbc]

7.3.  Aggregated Reporting (*)

   An autonomic network offers through the autonomic control plane the
   possibility to aggregate information inside the network, before
   sending it to the admin of the network.  While this can be seen or
   implemented as a specific form of negotiation, the use case is
   different and therefore mentioned here explicitly.

7.4.  Feedback Loops to NOC(*)

   Feedback loops are required in an autonomic network to allow the
   intervention of a human administrator or central control systems,
   while maintaining a default behaviour.  Through a feedback loop an
   administrator can be prompted with a default action, and has the
   possibility to acknowledge or override the proposed default action.

7.5.  APIs (*)

   Need considerations for APIs: How can ASAs use the ANI?  Where do we
   need APIs? [tbc]

7.6.  Data Model (*)

   Need considerations for a data model.  What it should cover, scope.
   [tbc]

8.  Coordination Between Autonomic Functions (*)

8.1.  The Coordination Problem (*)

   Different autonomic functions may conflict in setting certain
   parameters.  For example, an energy efficiency function may want to
   shut down a redundant link, while a load balancing function would not
   want that to happen.  The administrator must be able to understand
   and resolve such interactions, to steer autonomic network performance
   to a given (intended) operational point.

   Several interaction types may exist among autonomic functions, for
   example:



Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   o  Cooperation: An autonomic function can improve the behavior or
      performance of another autonomic function, such as a traffic
      forecasting function used by a traffic allocation function.

   o  Dependency: An autonomic function cannot work without another one
      being present or accessible in the autonomic network.

   o  Conflict: A metric value conflict is a conflict where one metric
      is influenced by parameters of different autonomic functions.  A
      parameter value conflict is a conflict where one parameter is
      modified by different autonomic functions.

   Solving the coordination problem beyond one-by-one cases can rapidly
   become intractable for large networks.  Specifying a common
   functional block on coordination is a first step to address the
   problem in a systemic way.  The coordination life-cycle consists in
   three states:

   o  At build-time, a "static interaction map" can be constructed on
      the relationship of functions and attributes.  This map can be
      used to (pre-)define policies and priorities on identified
      conflicts.

   o  At deploy-time, autonomic functions are not yet active/acting on
      the network.  A "dynamic interaction map" is created for each
      instance of each autonomic functions and on a per resource basis,
      including the actions performed and their relationships.  This map
      provides the basis to identify conflicts that will happen at run-
      time, categorize them and plan for the appropriate coordination
      strategies/mechanisms.

   o  At run-time, when conflicts happen, arbitration is driven by the
      coordination strategies.  Also new dependencies can be observed
      and inferred, resulting in an update of the dynamic interaction
      map and adaptation of the coordination strategies and mechanisms.

   Multiple coordination strategies and mechanisms exists and can be
   devised.  The set ranges from basic approaches such as random process
   or token-based process, to approaches based on time separation and
   hierarchical optimization, to more complex approaches such as multi-
   objective optimization, and other control theory approaches and
   algorithms family.

8.2.  A Coordination Functional Block (*)

   A common coordination functional block is a desirable component of
   the ANIMA reference model.  It provides a means to ensure network
   properties and predictable performance or behavior such as stability,



Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   and convergence, in the presence of several interacting autonomic
   functions.

   A common coordination function requires:

   o  A common description of autonomic functions, their attributes and
      life-cycle.

   o  A common representation of information and knowledge (e.g.,
      interaction maps).

   o  A common "control/command" interface between the coordination
      "agent" and the autonomic functions.

   Guidelines, recommendations or BCPs can also be provided for aspects
   pertaining to the coordination strategies and mechanisms.

9.  Hybrid Approach with Non-Autonomic Functions (*)

   This section explains how autonomic functions can co-exist with non-
   autonomic functions, and how a potential overlap is managed.  This is
   all about conflict resolution.  Maybe we should re-name that section?
   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] already mentions this.
   Maybe we don't need much more here. (tbc)

10.  Security Considerations

10.1.  Threat Analysis

   This is a preliminary outline of a threat analysis, to be expanded
   and made more specific as the various Autonomic Networking
   specifications evolve.

   Since AN will hand over responsibility for network configuration from
   humans or centrally established management systems to fully
   distributed devices, the threat environment is also fully
   distributed.  On the one hand, that means there is no single point of
   failure to act as an attractive target for bad actors.  On the other
   hand, it means that potentially a single misbehaving autonomic device
   could launch a widespread attack, by misusing the distributed AN
   mechanisms.  For example, a resource exhaustion attack could be
   launched by a single device requesting large amounts of that resource
   from all its peers, on behalf of a non-existent traffic load.
   Alternatively it could simply send false information to its peers,
   for example by announcing resource exhaustion when this was not the
   case.  If security properties are managed autonomically, a
   misbehaving device could attempt a distributed attack by requesting
   all its peers to reduce security protections in some way.  In



Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   general, since autonomic devices run without supervision, almost any
   kind of undesirable management action could in theory be attempted by
   a misbehaving device.

   If it is possible for an unauthorised device to act as an autonomic
   device, or for a malicious third party to inject messages appearing
   to come from an autonomic device, all these same risks would apply.

   If AN messages can be observed by a third party, they might reveal
   valuable information about network configuration, security
   precautions in use, individual users, and their traffic patterns.  If
   encrypted, AN messages might still reveal some information via
   traffic analysis, but this would be quite limited (for example, this
   would be highly unlikely to reveal any specific information about
   user traffic).  AN messages are liable to be exposed to third parties
   on any unprotected Layer 2 link, and to insider attacks even on
   protected Layer 2 links.

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action by IANA.

12.  Acknowledgements

   Many people have provided feedback and input to this document: Sheng
   Jiang, Roberta Maglione, Jonathan Hansford.

13.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

      00: Initial version.

14.  References

   [I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing]
              Behringer, M., "An Autonomic IPv6 Addressing Scheme",
              draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01 (work in
              progress), June 2015.

   [I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
              Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
              Autonomic Control Plane", draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-
              control-plane-02 (work in progress), March 2015.

   [I-D.carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol]
              Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "A Generic Discovery and
              Negotiation Protocol for Autonomic Networking", draft-
              carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-04 (work in progress), June
              2015.



Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions]
              Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
              Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
              Networking - Definitions and Design Goals", draft-irtf-
              nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00 (work in progress),
              December 2013.

   [I-D.jiang-auto-addr-management]
              Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and Q. Qiong, "Autonomic
              Networking Use Case for Auto Address Management", draft-
              jiang-auto-addr-management-00 (work in progress), April
              2014.

   [I-D.pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures]
              Pritikin, M., Behringer, M., and S. Bjarnason,
              "Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-pritikin-
              bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures-00 (work in progress),
              January 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Michael H. Behringer (editor)
   Cisco

   Email: mbehring@cisco.com


   Brian Carpenter
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland  1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   Toerless Eckert
   Cisco

   Email: eckert@cisco.com










Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             AN Reference Model                  June 2015


   Laurent Ciavaglia
   Alcatel Lucent
   Route de Villejust
   Nozay  91620
   France

   Email: laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com


   Bing Liu
   Huawei Technologies
   Q14, Huawei Campus
   No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100095
   P.R. China

   Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com


































Behringer, et al.       Expires December 19, 2015              [Page 16]