NSIS Authentication Authorization and Accounting Issues drafttschofenignsisaaaissues00 txt

Draft Scope This draft is: l l A first attempt to describe AAA issues

Introduction l At the last IETF Steve Bellovin talked about security issues in NSIS.

Introduction (cont. ) l Authorization has an implication on the security architecture. l We

New Jersey Turnpike Model Network A Network B Data Sender Node A • •

NJ Turnpike Model Issues l Establishment of the financial settlement between end host (data

New Jersey Parkway Model Network A Network B Network C Direct AAA relationship to

NJ Parkway Model Issues l Trusted third party might be required such as a

Who is charged for what? l Basic question: Charging for data sender or data

Sender-initiated reservation with charging for data receiver Network A Network B RESV Network C

Not enough problems already? Price Distribution Price for a Qo. S reservation: Price cannot

Price distribution Building Blocks l A resource negotiation and pricing protocol (RNAP) l An

Conclusion l Peer-to-peer security is fine for a simple charging model (NJ Turnpike). Authorization

Slides: 13

Download presentation

NSIS Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Issues (draft-tschofenig-nsis-aaa-issues-00. txt) l l l Authors: Hannes Tschofenig Henning Schulzrinne Maarten Buechli Sven Van den Bosch

Draft Scope This draft is: l l A first attempt to describe AAA issues relevant for NSIS. It points to the importance of authorization/charging for Qo. S signaling. The draft is not: l l l A summary of mathematical pricing models A new protocol proposal A motivation for a certain architecture Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

Introduction l At the last IETF Steve Bellovin talked about security issues in NSIS. l He pointed to the importance of authorization for an NSIS protocol. l An interesting aspect of authorization for Qo. S signaling is: Authorization = ability to charge someone 1 1 There are other authorization issues (e. g. session ownership). Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

Introduction (cont. ) l Authorization has an implication on the security architecture. l We looked at two possible models: — New Jersey Turnpike Model — New Jersey Parkway Model Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

New Jersey Turnpike Model Network A Network B Data Sender Node A • • Network C Data Receiver Node B Peering relationship is used to provide charging between neighboring networks Similar to edge pricing proposed by Schenker et. al. Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

NJ Turnpike Model Issues l Establishment of the financial settlement between end host (data sender favorable) and access network based on network access procedure (not per-session based) l Simple (if data sender is charged for the reservation) l More difficult: receiver-initiated signaling and charging for data receiver l Unfortunately it is possible to fully avoid reverse charging (e. g. #800 numbers). Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

New Jersey Parkway Model Network A Network B Network C Direct AAA relationship to intermediate networks Node A • • Data Sender Data Receiver Node B Financial settlement has to be provided on a per-session basis More complex: financial settlement to intermediate networks required (authentication alone is insufficient) Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

NJ Parkway Model Issues l Trusted third party might be required such as a clearing house since intermediate networks have no direct relationship to end host • Financial settlement has to be provided on a per-session basis scalability and deployment problem • More flexible signaling protocol functionality required: • A route change might require interaction with end host. • Signaling protocol might support the possibility for intermediate networks to interact with the end host • Aggregation in the core network might be difficult to use if persession information is required for charging. Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

Who is charged for what? l Basic question: Charging for data sender or data receiver l Sender- vs. receiver oriented signaling adds some issues but is not the source of the problem. l What is the problem? Per-session based establishment of financial settlement Example: Sender-initiated reservation with charging for data receiver (see next slide) Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

Sender-initiated reservation with charging for data receiver Network A Network B RESV Network C RESV “Authorization Information” Data Sender Node A • • Data Receiver Node B Node A indicates that some other entity is paying for the reservation. Why should Network A authorize the reservation request? Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

Not enough problems already? Price Distribution Price for a Qo. S reservation: Price cannot be deferred from the destination IP address alone (unlike telephone numbers) Price distribution required (can be in-band, out-of-band or a combination of both) Price depends on the route (number of traversed networks) Price is directional (due to cost and route asymmetry) An end user wants to know the price before issuing a reservation request. Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

Price distribution Building Blocks l A resource negotiation and pricing protocol (RNAP) l An embedded charging approach for RSVP l Border Pricing Protocol (BPP) l Billing Information Protocol (BIP) l Tariff Distribution Protocol (TDP) l Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP) l Open Settlement Protocol (OSP) Not surprising: Many of these protocols require the same properties as a Qo. S signaling protocol. Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com

Conclusion l Peer-to-peer security is fine for a simple charging model (NJ Turnpike). Authorization issues needs additional security protection. l Charging is not only an end-to-end (application) issue. The network needs some information. l Some authorization/charging objects have to be included into a NSIS protocol. l An NSIS protocol needs to be flexible. (e. g. support for several roundtrips). Hannes. Tschofenig@siemens. com