<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" version="3" category="info" consensus="true" docName="draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-25" indexInclude="true" ipr="trust200902" number="8903" prepTime="2021-05-27T14:14:47" scripts="Common,Latin" sortRefs="true" submissionType="IETF" symRefs="true" tocDepth="3" tocInclude="true" xml:lang="en">
  <link href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-25" rel="prev"/>
  <link href="https://dx.doi.org/10.17487/rfc8903" rel="alternate"/>
  <link href="urn:issn:2070-1721" rel="alternate"/>
  <front>
    <title abbrev="DOTS Use Cases">Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8903" stream="IETF"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Dobbins" fullname="Roland Dobbins">
      <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Netscout, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city/>
          <code/>
          <country>Singapore</country>
        </postal>
        <email>roland.dobbins@netscout.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="D." surname="Migault" fullname="Daniel Migault">
      <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>8275 Trans Canada Route</street>
          <city>Saint Laurent,</city>
          <region>Quebec</region>
          <code>4S 0B6</code>
          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>
        <email>daniel.migault@ericsson.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="R." surname="Moskowitz" fullname="Robert Moskowitz">
      <organization showOnFrontPage="true">HTT Consulting</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Oak Park</city>
          <region>MI</region>
          <code>48237</code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <email>rgm@labs.htt-consult.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="N." surname="Teague" fullname="Nik Teague">
      <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Iron Mountain Data Centers</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city/>
          <code/>
          <country>United Kingdom</country>
        </postal>
        <email>nteague@ironmountain.co.uk</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="L." surname="Xia" fullname="Liang Xia">
      <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>No. 101, Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District</street>
          <city>Nanjing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>Frank.xialiang@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="K." surname="Nishizuka" fullname="Kaname Nishizuka">
      <organization showOnFrontPage="true">NTT Communications</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku</street>
          <extaddr>GranPark 16F</extaddr>
          <region>Tokyo</region>
          <code>108-8118</code>
          <country>Japan</country>
        </postal>
        <email>kaname@nttv6.jp</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="05" year="2021"/>
    <area>Security</area>
    <workgroup>DOTS</workgroup>
    <abstract pn="section-abstract">
      <t indent="0" pn="section-abstract-1">The DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) effort is intended to provide
protocols to facilitate interoperability across disparate DDoS
Mitigation solutions. This document presents sample use cases that describe
the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS
messaging exchanges. These use cases are meant to identify the
interacting DOTS components, how they collaborate, and what the
typical information to be exchanged is.</t>
    </abstract>
    <boilerplate>
      <section anchor="status-of-memo" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-status-of-this-memo">Status of This Memo</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-1">
            This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
            published for informational purposes.  
        </t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-2">
            This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
            (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
            received public review and has been approved for publication by the
            Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
            approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
            Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. 
        </t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-3">
            Information about the current status of this document, any
            errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
            <eref target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8903" brackets="none"/>.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="copyright" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-copyright-notice">Copyright Notice</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.2-1">
            Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
            document authors. All rights reserved.
        </t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.2-2">
            This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
            Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
            (<eref target="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info" brackets="none"/>) 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.
        </t>
      </section>
    </boilerplate>
    <toc>
      <section anchor="toc" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-toc.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-table-of-contents">Table of Contents</name>
        <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1">
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.1">
            <t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-introduction">Introduction</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.2">
            <t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.1"><xref derivedContent="2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-terminology-and-acronyms">Terminology and Acronyms</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.1"><xref derivedContent="3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-use-cases">Use Cases</xref></t>
            <ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2">
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1">
                <t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="3.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-upstream-ddos-mitigation-by">Upstream DDoS Mitigation by an Upstream Internet Transit Provider</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="3.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-ddos-mitigation-by-a-third-">DDoS Mitigation by a Third-Party DDoS Mitigation Service Provider</xref></t>
              </li>
              <li pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.3">
                <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent="3.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-ddos-orchestration">DDoS Orchestration</xref></t>
              </li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.4">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.1"><xref derivedContent="4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.5">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.1"><xref derivedContent="5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.6">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.1"><xref derivedContent="6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-informative-references">Informative References</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.7">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</xref></t>
          </li>
          <li pn="section-toc.1-1.8">
            <t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.8.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.b"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</xref></t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </toc>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1">
      <name slugifiedName="name-introduction">Introduction</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-1-1">At the time of writing, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack
mitigation solutions are largely based upon siloed, proprietary
communications schemes with vendor lock-in as a side effect. This can
result in the configuration, provisioning, operation, and activation of
these solutions being a highly manual and often time-consuming process.
Additionally, coordinating multiple DDoS Mitigation solutions
simultaneously is fraught with both technical and process-related
hurdles. This greatly increases operational complexity, which in turn
can degrade the efficacy of mitigations that are generally highly dependent on
      a timely reaction by the system.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-1-2">The DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) effort is intended to specify
protocols that facilitate interoperability between diverse DDoS
Mitigation solutions and ensure greater integration in terms of
attack detection, mitigation requests, and attack characterization patterns.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-1-3">As DDoS solutions are broadly heterogeneous among vendors, the
primary goal of DOTS is to provide high-level interaction amongst
differing DDoS solutions, such as detecting DDoS attacks,
initiating/terminating DDoS Mitigation assistance, or requesting the
status of a DDoS Mitigation.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-1-4">This document provides sample use cases that provided input for the requirements <xref target="RFC8612" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8612"/> and design of
the DOTS protocols <xref target="RFC8782" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8782"/><xref target="RFC8783" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8783"/>. The use cases are not exhaustive, and future use cases are
expected to emerge as DOTS is adopted and evolves.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology-and-acronyms" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2">
      <name slugifiedName="name-terminology-and-acronyms">Terminology and Acronyms</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-2-1">This document makes use of the same terminology and definitions as
<xref target="RFC8612" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8612"/>. In addition, it uses the terms defined
below:</t>
      <dl newline="true" spacing="normal" indent="3" pn="section-2-2">
        <dt pn="section-2-2.1">DDoS Mitigation System (DMS):</dt>
        <dd pn="section-2-2.2">A system that performs DDoS
Mitigation. The DDoS Mitigation System may be composed of a cluster of
hardware and/or software resources but could also involve an orchestrator that
may make decisions, such as outsourcing some or all of the mitigation to
another DDoS Mitigation System.</dd>
        <dt pn="section-2-2.3">DDoS Mitigation:</dt>
        <dd pn="section-2-2.4">The action performed by the DDoS Mitigation System.</dd>
        <dt pn="section-2-2.5">DDoS Mitigation Service:</dt>
        <dd pn="section-2-2.6">Designates a service provided to a
customer to mitigate DDoS attacks. Each service subscription usually involve
Service Level Agreement (SLA) that has to be met. It is the responsibility of
the DDoS Service provider to instantiate the DDoS Mitigation System to meet
these SLAs.</dd>
        <dt pn="section-2-2.7">DDoS Mitigation Service Provider:</dt>
        <dd pn="section-2-2.8">Designates the administrative
entity providing the DDoS Mitigation Service.</dd>
        <dt pn="section-2-2.9">Internet Transit Provider (ITP):</dt>
        <dd pn="section-2-2.10">Designates the entity that
delivers the traffic to a customer network. It can be an Internet Service
Provider (ISP) or an upstream entity delivering the traffic to the ISP.
</dd>
      </dl>
    </section>
    <section anchor="use-cases" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-3">
      <name slugifiedName="name-use-cases">Use Cases</name>
      <section anchor="use-case-1" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-3.1">
        <name slugifiedName="name-upstream-ddos-mitigation-by">Upstream DDoS Mitigation by an Upstream Internet Transit Provider</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-1">This use case describes how an enterprise or a residential customer
network may take advantage of a pre-existing relation with its ITP in order to mitigate a DDoS attack targeting its
network.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-2">For clarity of discussion, the targeted network is indicated as an enterprise
network, but the same scenario applies to any downstream network, including
residential and cloud hosting networks.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-3">As the ITP provides connectivity to the enterprise
network, it is already on the path of the inbound and outbound traffic of
the enterprise network and is well aware of the networking parameters
associated with the enterprise network WAN connectivity. This eases both the
configuration and the instantiation of a DDoS Mitigation Service.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-4">This
section considers two kinds of DDoS Mitigation Service between an
enterprise network and an ITP:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal" bare="false" empty="false" indent="3" pn="section-3.1-5">
          <li pn="section-3.1-5.1">The upstream ITP may instantiate a DMS upon
receiving a request from the enterprise network. This typically
corresponds to a case when the enterprise network is under attack.</li>
          <li pn="section-3.1-5.2">On the other hand, the ITP may identify an enterprise network as the
source of an attack and send a mitigation request to the enterprise DMS
to mitigate this at the source.</li>
        </ul>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-6">The two scenarios, though different, have similar interactions between
the DOTS client and server. For the sake of simplicity, only the first
scenario will be detailed in this section. Nevertheless, the second scenario is also in scope for DOTS.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-7">In the first scenario, as depicted in <xref target="fig-1" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Figure 1"/>, an enterprise network
with self-hosted Internet-facing properties such as web servers,
authoritative DNS servers, and Voice over IP (VoIP) servers has a DMS deployed to
protect those servers and applications from DDoS attacks. In addition to
on-premise DDoS defense capabilities, the enterprise has contracted with
its ITP for DDoS Mitigation Services when attacks
threaten to overwhelm the bandwidth of their WAN link(s).</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-1" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure-1">
          <name slugifiedName="name-upstream-internet-transit-p">Upstream Internet Transit Provider DDoS Mitigation</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-3.1-8.1">
    +------------------+        +------------------+
    | Enterprise       |        | Upstream         |
    | Network          |        | Internet Transit |
    |                  |        | Provider         |
    |      +--------+  |        |             DDoS Attack
    |      | DDoS   |  | &lt;=================================
    |      | Target |  | &lt;=================================
    |      +--------+  |        |  +------------+  |
    |                  | +--------&gt;| DDoS       |  |
    |                  | |      |S | Mitigation |  |
    |                  | |      |  | System     |  |
    |                  | |      |  +------------+  |
    |                  | |      |                  |
    |                  | |      |                  |
    |                  | |      |                  |
    |  +------------+  | |      |                  |
    |  | DDoS       |&lt;---+      |                  |
    |  | Mitigation |C |        |                  |
    |  | System     |  |        |                  |
    |  +------------+  |        |                  |
    +------------------+        +------------------+

       * C is for DOTS client functionality
       * S is for DOTS server functionality
</artwork>
        </figure>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-9">The enterprise DMS is configured such that if the incoming Internet
traffic volume exceeds 50% of the provisioned upstream Internet WAN
link capacity, the DMS will request DDoS Mitigation assistance from the
upstream transit provider. More sophisticated detection means may be considered
as well.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-10">The requests to trigger, manage, and finalize a DDoS Mitigation between
the enterprise DMS and the ITP are made using DOTS. The enterprise
DMS implements a DOTS client while the ITP implements a DOTS server,
which is integrated with their DMS in this example.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-11">When the enterprise DMS locally detects an inbound DDoS attack targeting
its resources (e.g., servers, hosts, or applications), it immediately
begins a DDoS Mitigation.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-12">During the course of the attack, the inbound traffic volume to the enterprise network exceeds the
50% threshold, and the enterprise DMS escalates the DDoS Mitigation. The
enterprise DMS DOTS client signals to the DOTS server on the upstream ITP
to initiate DDoS Mitigation. The DOTS server replies to the DOTS client
that it can serve this request, and mitigation is initiated on the ITP
network by the ITP DMS.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-13">Over the course of the attack, the DOTS server of the ITP periodically
informs the DOTS client on the mitigation status,
statistics related to DDoS attack traffic mitigation, and related
information. Once the DDoS attack has ended or decreased to a certain
level that the enterprise DMS might handle by itself, the DOTS server
signals the enterprise DMS DOTS client that the attack has subsided.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-14">The DOTS client on the enterprise DMS then requests that the ITP terminate
the DDoS Mitigation. The DOTS server on the ITP receives this request
and, once the mitigation has ended, confirms the end of upstream DDoS
Mitigation to the enterprise DMS DOTS client.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-15">The following is an overview of the DOTS communication model for this
use case:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-3.1-16">
          <li pn="section-3.1-16.1" derivedCounter="1.">A DDoS attack is initiated against resources of a
network organization (here, the enterprise), which has deployed a
DOTS-capable DMS -- typically a DOTS client.</li>
          <li pn="section-3.1-16.2" derivedCounter="2.">The enterprise DMS detects, classifies, and begins the DDoS
 Mitigation.</li>
          <li pn="section-3.1-16.3" derivedCounter="3.">The enterprise  DMS determines that its capacity and/or capability
to mitigate the DDoS attack is insufficient and sends a DOTS DDoS Mitigation request via its DOTS
client to one or more DOTS servers
residing on the upstream ITP.</li>
          <li pn="section-3.1-16.4" derivedCounter="4.">The DOTS server, which receives the DOTS Mitigation request,
determines that it has been configured to honor requests from the
requesting DOTS client and does so by orchestrating
its own DMS.</li>
          <li pn="section-3.1-16.5" derivedCounter="5.">While the DDoS Mitigation is active, the DOTS server
regularly transmits DOTS DDoS Mitigation status updates to the DOTS
client.</li>
          <li pn="section-3.1-16.6" derivedCounter="6.">Informed by the DOTS server status update that the attack has
ended or subsided, the DOTS client transmits a DOTS DDoS Mitigation
termination request to the DOTS server.</li>
          <li pn="section-3.1-16.7" derivedCounter="7.">The DOTS server terminates DDoS Mitigation and sends the
notification to the DOTS client.</li>
        </ol>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-17">Note that communications between the enterprise DOTS client and the
upstream ITP DOTS server may take place in band within the main Internet
WAN link between the enterprise and the ITP; out of band via a separate,
dedicated wireline network link utilized solely for DOTS signaling; or
out of band via some other form of network connectivity such as
third-party wireless 4G network connectivity.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-18">Note also that a DOTS client that sends a DOTS Mitigation request
may also be triggered by a network admin that manually confirms the
request to the upstream ITP, in which case the request may be sent from
an application such as a web browser or a dedicated mobile application.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.1-19">Note also that when the enterprise is multihomed and connected to
multiple upstream ITPs, each ITP is only able to provide a DDoS
Mitigation Service for the traffic it transits. As a result, the
enterprise network may be required to coordinate the various DDoS Mitigation
Services associated with each link. More multihoming considerations are
discussed in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dots-multihoming" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="DOTS-MULTIHOMING"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="use-case-2" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-3.2">
        <name slugifiedName="name-ddos-mitigation-by-a-third-">DDoS Mitigation by a Third-Party DDoS Mitigation Service Provider</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2-1">This use case differs from the previous use case described in <xref target="use-case-1" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.1"/> in that the DDoS Mitigation Service is not provided by an upstream
ITP. In other words, as represented in <xref target="fig-2" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Figure 2"/>, the traffic is not
forwarded through the DDoS Mitigation Service Provider by default. In
order to steer the traffic to the DDoS Mitigation Service Provider, some
network configuration changes are required. As such, this use case is
likely to apply to large enterprises or large data centers but, as for
the other use cases, is not exclusively limited to them.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2-2">Another typical scenario for this use case is for there to be a relationship
between DDoS Mitigation Service Providers, forming an overlay of DMS. When
a DDoS Mitigation Service Provider mitigating a DDoS attack reaches its
resource capacity, it may choose to delegate the DDoS Mitigation to
another DDoS Mitigation Service Provider.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-2" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure-2">
          <name slugifiedName="name-ddos-mitigation-between-an-">DDoS Mitigation between an Enterprise Network and a Third-Party DDoS Mitigation Service Provider</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-3.2-3.1">
   +------------------+        +------------------+
   | Enterprise       |        | Upstream         |
   | Network          |        | Internet Transit |
   |                  |        | Provider         |
   |      +--------+  |        |             DDoS Attack
   |      | DDoS   |  | &lt;=================================
   |      | Target |  | &lt;=================================
   |      +--------+  |        |                  |
   |                  |        |                  |
   |                  |        +------------------+
   |                  |                            
   |                  |        +------------------+
   |                  |        | DDoS Mitigation  |
   |                  |        | Service Provider |
   |                  |        |                  |
   |  +------------+  |        |  +------------+  |
   |  | DDoS       |&lt;------------&gt;| DDoS       |  | 
   |  | Mitigation |C |        | S| Mitigation |  |
   |  | System     |  |        |  | System     |  |
   |  +------------+  |        |  +------------+  |
   +------------------+        +------------------+

       * C is for DOTS client functionality
       * S is for DOTS server functionality
</artwork>
        </figure>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2-4">In this scenario, an enterprise network has entered into a prearranged
DDoS Mitigation assistance agreement with one or more third-party DDoS
Mitigation Service Providers in order to ensure that sufficient DDoS
Mitigation capacity and/or capabilities may be activated in the event
that a given DDoS attack threatens to overwhelm the ability of the
enterprise or any other given DMS to mitigate the attack on its own.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2-5">The prearrangement typically includes agreement on the mechanisms
used to redirect the traffic to the DDoS Mitigation Service Provider, as
well as the mechanism to re-inject the traffic back to the Enterprise
Network. Redirection to the DDoS Mitigation Service Provider typically
involves BGP prefix announcement or DNS redirection, while re-injection
of the scrubbed traffic to the enterprise network may be performed via
tunneling mechanisms (e.g., GRE). The exact mechanisms
used for traffic steering are out of scope of DOTS but will need to be prearranged, while in some contexts such changes could be detected and considered as an attack.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2-6">In some cases, the communication between the enterprise DOTS client and
the DOTS server of the DDoS Mitigation Service Provider may go through
the ITP carrying the DDoS attack, which would affect the communication.
On the other hand, the communication between the DOTS client and DOTS
server may take a path that is not undergoing a DDoS attack.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-3" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure-3">
          <name slugifiedName="name-redirection-to-a-ddos-mitig">Redirection to a DDoS Mitigation Service Provider</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-3.2-7.1">
  +------------------+        +------------------+
  | Enterprise       |        | Upstream         |
  | Network          |        | Internet Transit |
  |                  |        | Provider         |
  |      +--------+  |        |             DDoS Attack
  |      | DDoS   |  |&lt;----------------+         | ++====
  |      | Target |  |    Mitigated    |         | || ++=
  |      +--------+  |        |        |         | || ||
  |                  |        |        |         | || ||
  |                  |        +--------|---------+ || ||
  |                  |                 |           || ||
  |                  |        +--------|---------+ || ||
  |                  |        | DDoS Mitigation  | || ||
  |                  |        | Service Provider | || ||
  |                  |        |        |         | || ||
  |  +------------+  |        |  +------------+  | || ||
  |  | DDoS       |&lt;------------&gt;| DDoS       |  | || ||
  |  | mitigation |C |        |S | mitigation |&lt;===++ ||
  |  | system     |  |        |  | system     |&lt;======++
  |  +------------+  |        |  +------------+  |
  +------------------+        +------------------+

       * C is for DOTS client functionality
       * S is for DOTS server functionality
</artwork>
        </figure>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.2-8">When the enterprise network is under attack or at least is reaching its
capacity or ability to mitigate a given DDoS attack, the DOTS
client sends a DOTS request to the DDoS Mitigation Service Provider to
initiate network traffic diversion -- as represented in <xref target="fig-3" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Figure 3"/> -- and
DDoS Mitigation activities. Ongoing attack and mitigation status
messages may be passed between the enterprise network and the DDoS
Mitigation Service Provider using DOTS. If the DDoS attack has stopped or the
severity of the attack has subsided, the DOTS client can request that the
DDoS Mitigation Service Provider terminate the DDoS Mitigation.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="use-case-3" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-3.3">
        <name slugifiedName="name-ddos-orchestration">DDoS Orchestration</name>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-1">In this use case, one or more DDoS telemetry systems or monitoring
devices monitor a network -- typically an ISP network, an enterprise
network, or a data center. Upon detection of a DDoS attack, these DDoS
telemetry systems alert an orchestrator in charge of coordinating the
various DMSs within the domain. The DDoS telemetry systems may be
configured to provide required information, such as a preliminary
analysis of the observation, to the orchestrator.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-2">The orchestrator analyzes the various sets of information it receives from DDoS
telemetry systems and initiates one or more DDoS Mitigation
strategies. For example, the orchestrator could select the DMS in the enterprise network or one provided by the ITP.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-3">DMS selection and DDoS Mitigation techniques may
depend on the type of the DDoS attack. In some cases, a manual confirmation
or selection may also be required to choose a proposed strategy to
initiate a DDoS Mitigation. The DDoS Mitigation may consist of multiple
steps such as configuring the network or updating already-instantiated
DDoS Mitigation functions. Eventually, the coordination of the
mitigation may involve external DDoS Mitigation resources such as a
transit provider or a third-party DDoS Mitigation Service Provider.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-4">The communication used to trigger a DDoS Mitigation between the DDoS
telemetry and monitoring systems and the orchestrator is performed using
DOTS. The DDoS telemetry system implements a DOTS client while the
orchestrator implements a DOTS server.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-5">The communication between a network administrator and the orchestrator
is also performed using DOTS. The network administrator uses, for example, a web
interface that interacts with a DOTS client, while the orchestrator
implements a DOTS server.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-6">The communication between the orchestrator and the DMSs is performed using DOTS. The orchestrator implements a DOTS
client while the DMSs implement a DOTS server.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-7">The configuration aspects of each DMS, as well as the
instantiations of DDoS Mitigation functions or network configuration, are
not part of DOTS. Similarly, the discovery of available DDoS Mitigation
functions is not part of DOTS and, as such, is out of scope.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-4" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure-4">
          <name slugifiedName="name-ddos-orchestration-2">DDoS Orchestration</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-3.3-8.1">
       +----------+              
       | network  |C            (Enterprise Network)
       | admini-  |&lt;-+
       | strator  |  |
       +----------+  |
                     |                       
       +----------+  | S+--------------+     +-----------+
       |telemetry/|  +-&gt;|              |C   S| DDoS      |+
       |monitoring|&lt;---&gt;| Orchestrator |&lt;---&gt;| mitigation||
       |systems   |C   S|              |&lt;-+  | systems   ||
       +----------+     +--------------+C |  +-----------+|
                                          |    +----------+
       -----------------------------------|-----------------
                                          |
                                          |
          (Internet Transit Provider)     |  
                                          |  +-----------+
                                          | S| DDoS      |+
                                          +-&gt;| mitigation||
                                             | systems   ||
                                             +-----------+|
       * C is for DOTS client functionality    +----------+
       * S is for DOTS server functionality
</artwork>
        </figure>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-9">The DDoS telemetry systems monitor various aspects of the network traffic and perform
some measurement tasks.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-10">These systems are configured so that when an event or some measurement
indicators reach a predefined level, their associated DOTS client sends a
DOTS mitigation request to the orchestrator DOTS server. The DOTS
mitigation request may be associated with some optional mitigation hints
to let the orchestrator know what has triggered the request. In particular, it
	is possible for something that looks like an attack locally to one
	telemetry system is not actually an attack when seen from the broader scope (e.g., of the orchestrator).</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-11">Upon receipt of the DOTS mitigation request from the DDoS telemetry
system, the orchestrator DOTS server responds with an acknowledgment to
avoid retransmission of the request for mitigation. The orchestrator
may begin collecting additional fine-grained and specific information
from various DDoS telemetry systems in order to correlate the
measurements and provide an analysis of the event. Eventually, the
orchestrator may ask for additional information from the DDoS telemetry
system; however, the collection of this information is out of scope of DOTS.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-12">The orchestrator may be configured to start a DDoS Mitigation upon
approval from a network administrator. The analysis from the
orchestrator is reported to the network administrator via, for example, a web
interface. If the network administrator decides to start the mitigation,
the network administrator triggers the DDoS Mitigation request using, for example, a
web interface of a DOTS client communicating to the orchestrator DOTS
server. This request is expected to be associated with a context that
provides sufficient information to the orchestrator DOTS server to infer, elaborate, and coordinate
the appropriate DDoS Mitigation.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-13">Upon receiving a request to mitigate a DDoS attack aimed at a
target, the orchestrator may evaluate the volume of the attack as
well as the value that the target represents. The orchestrator may
select the DDoS Mitigation Service Provider based on the attack
severity. It may also coordinate the DDoS Mitigation performed by the
DDoS Mitigation Service Provider with some other tasks such as, for
example, moving the target to another network so new sessions will not
be impacted. The orchestrator requests a DDoS Mitigation by the selected
DMSs via its DOTS client, as described in <xref target="use-case-1" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3.1"/>.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-14">The orchestrator DOTS client is notified that the DDoS Mitigation is
effective by the selected DMSs. The orchestrator DOTS
server returns this information to the network administrator.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-15">Similarly, when the DDoS attack has stopped, the orchestrator DOTS
client is notified and the orchestrator's DOTS server indicates the end of the
	DDoS Mitigation to the DDoS telemetry systems as well as to the network administrator.</t>
        <t indent="0" pn="section-3.3-16">In addition to the DDoS orchestration shown in <xref target="fig-4" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Figure 4"/>, the selected DMS can return a mitigation request to the
orchestrator as an offloading. For example, when the DDoS attack becomes severe and
the DMS's utilization rate reaches its maximum
capacity, the DMS can send mitigation requests with
additional hints, such as its blocked traffic information, to the
orchestrator.  Then the orchestrator can take further actions such as 
requesting forwarding nodes (e.g., routers) to filter the traffic. In
this case, the DMS implements a DOTS client while the
orchestrator implements a DOTS server. Similar to other DOTS use cases, the offloading scenario assumes that some validation checks are followed by the DMS, the orchestrator, or both (e.g., avoid exhausting the resources of the forwarding nodes or inadvertent disruption of legitimate services). These validation checks are part of the mitigation and are therefore out of the scope of the document.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4">
      <name slugifiedName="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-4-1">The document does not describe any protocol, though there are still a few
high-level security considerations to discuss.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-4-2">DOTS is at risk from three primary attacks: DOTS agent impersonation, traffic
injection, and signaling blocking.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-4-3">Impersonation and traffic injection mitigation can be mitigated through
current secure communications best practices, including mutual authentication. Preconfigured mitigation
steps to take on the loss of keepalive traffic can partially mitigate
signal blocking. But in general, it is impossible to comprehensively
defend against an attacker that can selectively block any or all traffic.
Alternate communication paths that are (hopefully) not subject to blocking
by the attacker in question is another potential mitigation.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-4-4">Additional details of DOTS security requirements can be found in
<xref target="RFC8612" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8612"/>.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-4-5">Service disruption may be experienced if inadequate mitigation actions are applied. These considerations are out of the scope of DOTS.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5">
      <name slugifiedName="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-5-1">This document has no IANA actions.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-dots-multihoming" to="DOTS-MULTIHOMING"/>
    <references pn="section-6">
      <name slugifiedName="name-informative-references">Informative References</name>
      <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-dots-multihoming" quoteTitle="true" target="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-06" derivedAnchor="DOTS-MULTIHOMING">
        <front>
          <title>Multi-homing Deployment Considerations for Distributed-Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)</title>
          <author fullname="Mohamed Boucadair">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Orange</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Tirumaleswar Reddy">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true">McAfee, Inc.</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Wei Pan">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Huawei Technologies</organization>
          </author>
          <date month="May" day="25" year="2021"/>
          <abstract>
            <t indent="0">   This document discusses multi-homing considerations for Distributed-
   Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS).  The goal is to
   provide some guidance for DOTS clients/gateways when multihomed.

            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-06"/>
        <format type="TXT" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-06.txt"/>
        <refcontent>Work in Progress</refcontent>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8612" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8612" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8612">
        <front>
          <title>DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Requirements</title>
          <author initials="A." surname="Mortensen" fullname="A. Mortensen">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <author initials="T." surname="Reddy" fullname="T. Reddy">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <author initials="R." surname="Moskowitz" fullname="R. Moskowitz">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <date year="2019" month="May"/>
          <abstract>
            <t indent="0">This document defines the requirements for the Distributed Denial-of- Service (DDoS) Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) protocols enabling coordinated response to DDoS attacks.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8612"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8612"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8782" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8782" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8782">
        <front>
          <title>Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification</title>
          <author initials="T." surname="Reddy.K" fullname="T. Reddy.K" role="editor">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <author initials="M." surname="Boucadair" fullname="M. Boucadair" role="editor">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <author initials="P." surname="Patil" fullname="P. Patil">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <author initials="A." surname="Mortensen" fullname="A. Mortensen">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <author initials="N." surname="Teague" fullname="N. Teague">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <date year="2020" month="May"/>
          <abstract>
            <t indent="0">This document specifies the Distributed Denial-of-Service                              Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) signal channel, a protocol for                                 signaling the need for protection against Distributed Denial-of-Service                   (DDoS) attacks to a server capable of enabling network traffic                            mitigation on behalf of the requesting client.</t>
            <t indent="0">A companion document defines the DOTS data channel, a separate                         reliable communication layer for DOTS management and configuration                        purposes.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8782"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8782"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8783" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8783" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8783">
        <front>
          <title>Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel Specification</title>
          <author initials="M." surname="Boucadair" fullname="M. Boucadair" role="editor">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <author initials="T." surname="Reddy.K" fullname="T. Reddy.K" role="editor">
            <organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
          </author>
          <date year="2020" month="May"/>
          <abstract>
            <t indent="0">The document specifies a Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) data channel used for bulk exchange of data that cannot easily or appropriately communicated through the DOTS signal channel under attack conditions.</t>
            <t indent="0">This is a companion document to "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification" (RFC 8782).</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8783"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8783"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <section anchor="acknowledgments" numbered="false" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-appendix.a">
      <name slugifiedName="name-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</name>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a-1">The authors would like to thank, among others, <contact fullname="Tirumaleswar Reddy.K"/>, <contact fullname="Andrew Mortensen"/>, <contact fullname="Mohamed Boucadair"/>, <contact fullname="Artyom Gavrichenkov"/>, <contact fullname="Jon Shallow"/>, <contact fullname="Yuuhei Hayashi"/>, <contact fullname="Elwyn Davies"/>, the DOTS WG Chairs (at the
      time of writing) <contact fullname="Roman Danyliw"/> and <contact fullname="Tobias Gondrom"/>, as well as
the Security AD <contact fullname="Benjamin Kaduk"/> for their valuable feedback.</t>
      <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a-2">We also would like to thank <contact fullname="Stephan Fouant"/>, who
      was one of the initial coauthors of the documents.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="authors-addresses" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-appendix.b">
      <name slugifiedName="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</name>
      <author initials="R." surname="Dobbins" fullname="Roland Dobbins">
        <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Netscout, Inc.</organization>
        <address>
          <postal>
            <street/>
            <city/>
            <code/>
            <country>Singapore</country>
          </postal>
          <email>roland.dobbins@netscout.com</email>
        </address>
      </author>
      <author initials="D." surname="Migault" fullname="Daniel Migault">
        <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Ericsson</organization>
        <address>
          <postal>
            <street>8275 Trans Canada Route</street>
            <city>Saint Laurent,</city>
            <region>Quebec</region>
            <code>4S 0B6</code>
            <country>Canada</country>
          </postal>
          <email>daniel.migault@ericsson.com</email>
        </address>
      </author>
      <author initials="R." surname="Moskowitz" fullname="Robert Moskowitz">
        <organization showOnFrontPage="true">HTT Consulting</organization>
        <address>
          <postal>
            <street/>
            <city>Oak Park</city>
            <region>MI</region>
            <code>48237</code>
            <country>United States of America</country>
          </postal>
          <email>rgm@labs.htt-consult.com</email>
        </address>
      </author>
      <author initials="N." surname="Teague" fullname="Nik Teague">
        <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Iron Mountain Data Centers</organization>
        <address>
          <postal>
            <street/>
            <city/>
            <code/>
            <country>United Kingdom</country>
          </postal>
          <email>nteague@ironmountain.co.uk</email>
        </address>
      </author>
      <author initials="L." surname="Xia" fullname="Liang Xia">
        <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Huawei</organization>
        <address>
          <postal>
            <street>No. 101, Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District</street>
            <city>Nanjing</city>
            <country>China</country>
          </postal>
          <email>Frank.xialiang@huawei.com</email>
        </address>
      </author>
      <author initials="K." surname="Nishizuka" fullname="Kaname Nishizuka">
        <organization showOnFrontPage="true">NTT Communications</organization>
        <address>
          <postal>
            <street>3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku</street>
            <extaddr>GranPark 16F</extaddr>
            <region>Tokyo</region>
            <code>108-8118</code>
            <country>Japan</country>
          </postal>
          <email>kaname@nttv6.jp</email>
        </address>
      </author>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
