RFC 9899: Extensions to the YANG Data Model for Access Control Lists (ACLs)
- O. Gonzalez de Dios,
- S. Barguil,
- M. Boucadair,
- Q. Wu
Abstract
RFC 8519 defines a YANG data model for Access Control Lists (ACLs). This document specifies a set of extensions that fix many of the limitations of the ACL model as initially defined in RFC 8519. Specifically, it introduces augmentations to the ACL base model to enhance its functionality and applicability.¶
This document also creates initial versions of IANA-maintained modules for ICMP types and IPv6 extension headers.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
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). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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
(https://
1. Introduction
[RFC8519] defines Access Control Lists (ACLs) as a user-ordered set of filtering rules. The model targets the configuration of the filtering behavior of a device. However, the model structure, as defined in [RFC8519], suffers from a set of limitations. This document identifies these limitations and specifies an enhanced ACL structure, introducing augmentations to the ACL base model (Section 4). The motivation of such an enhanced ACL structure is discussed in detail in Appendix A.¶
When managing ACLs, it is common for network operators to group match elements in predefined sets. The consolidation into group matches allows for reducing the number of rules, especially in large-scale networks. For example, if finding a match against 100 IP addresses (or prefixes) is needed, a single rule will suffice rather than creating individual Access Control Entries (ACEs) for each IP address (or prefix). In doing so, implementations would optimize the performance of matching lists versus multiple rules matching.¶
The enhanced ACL structure (see "ietf-acl-enh" in Section 4) is also meant to facilitate the management of network operators. Instead of entering the IP address or port number literals, using user-named lists decouples the creation of the rule from the management of the sets. Hence, it is possible to remove/add entries to the list without redefining the (parent) ACL rule.¶
In addition, the notion of ACL and defined sets
is generalized so that it is not device specific as per [RFC8519]. ACLs
and defined sets may be defined at the network
Network operators maintain sets of IP prefixes that are related to each other, e.g., deny-lists or accept-lists that are associated with those provided by a VPN customer. These lists are maintained and manipulated by security expert teams of the network operators.¶
Note that ACLs are used locally in devices but are triggered by other tools such as DDoS mitigation [RFC9132] or BGP Flow Spec [RFC8955] [RFC8956]. Therefore, it is valuable from a network operation standpoint to support the means to easily map to the filtering rules conveyed in messages triggered by these tools.¶
The enhanced ACL module (Section 4) conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [RFC8342].¶
A set of examples to illustrate the use of the enhanced ACL module is provided in Appendix B.¶
This document also creates initial versions of IANA-maintained
modules for ICMP types and IPv6 extension headers. The design of the
modules adheres to the recommendations in Section 4.30.2 of [YANG-GUIDELINES]. The latest
version of these IANA-maintained modules can be retrieved from the "YANG
Parameters" registry group [IANA
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
The terminology for describing YANG modules is defined in [RFC7950]. The meaning of the symbols in the tree diagrams is defined in [RFC8340].¶
In addition to the terms defined in [RFC8519], this document makes use of the following term:¶
- Defined set:
-
Elements in a defined set typically share a logical purpose or function, such as IP addresses, IP prefixes, port numbers, or ICMP types.¶
3. Overall Structure of the Enhanced ACL Module
3.1. Tree Structure
Figure 1 shows the full tree of the enhanced ACL module (Section 4):¶
Figure 2 shows the reusable groupings that are defined in the enhanced ACL module:¶
3.2. Defined Sets
The augmented ACL structure includes several containers to manage reusable sets of elements that can be matched in an ACL entry. Each set is uniquely identified by a name and can be called from the relevant entry. The following sets (seen in Figure 1) are defined:¶
- IPv4 prefix sets:
-
An IPv4 prefix set contains a list of IPv4 prefixes. A match will be considered if the IP address (source or destination, depending on the ACL entry) is contained in any of the prefixes in the set.¶
- IPv6 prefix sets:
-
An IPv6 prefix contains a list of IPv6 prefixes. A match will be considered if the IP address (source or destination, depending on the ACL entry) is contained in any of the prefixes in the set.¶
- Port sets:
-
A port set contains a list of port numbers to be used in transport protocol entries (e.g., TCP and UDP).¶
A port number can be a port range or a single port number along with an operator (equal to, greater than or equal to, etc.).¶
- Protocol sets:
-
A protocol set contains a list of protocol values. A protocol can be identified by either a number (e.g., 17) or a name (e.g., UDP).¶
- ICMP sets:
-
An ICMP set contains a list of ICMPv4 [RFC0792] or ICMPv6 [RFC4443] types, and each type is identified by a type value and is optionally identified by the code and the rest of the header.¶
IANA-maintained modules for ICMP types are created in this document.¶
- Aliases:
-
An alias is defined by a combination of various parameters (e.g., IP prefix, protocol, port number, or VLAN [IEEE802.1Qcp]). When only sets of one parameter (e.g., protocol) are handled, then the relevant parameter sets should be used (e.g., protocol set) rather than an alias.¶
For example, an alias can be defined to apply ACL policies bound to a set of HTTPS servers. Such an alias will typically include these HTTPS server addresses (e.g., "prefix": ["2001
:db8 :6401 ::1 /128","2001 :db8 :6401 ::2 /128"] ) and the TCP port number 443 (i.e., "protocol": [6] and "lower-port": 443).¶ Sets of aliases can be defined and referred to in ACL match criteria.¶
- Payload-based filtering:
-
A network traffic filtering technique that examines the data payload of packets, beyond just the header information, to identify, allow, or block traffic based on specific content or patterns within the payload. An offset type (e.g., Layer 2 or Layer 3) is used to indicate the position of the data in the packet to use for the match.¶
3.3. IPv6 Extension Headers
The enhanced ACL module can be used to manage ACLs that require matching against IPv6 extension headers [RFC8200]. To that aim, a new IANA-maintained module for IPv6 extension header types, "iana
3.4. TCP Flags Handling
The augmented ACL module includes a new container 'flags-bitmask' to better handle TCP flags (Section 3.1 of [RFC9293]). Assigned TCP flags are maintained in the "TCP Header Flags" registry under the "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Parameters" registry group [IANA-TCP-FLAGS].¶
Clients that support both 'flags-bitmask' and 'flags' [RFC8519] matching fields MUST NOT set these fields in the same request.¶
3.5. Fragments Handling
The augmented ACL module includes new leafs 'ipv4-fragment' and 'ipv6-fragment' to better handle fragments.¶
Clients that support both 'ipv4-fragment' and 'flags' [RFC8519] matching fields MUST NOT set these fields in the same request.¶
3.6. Payload-Based Filtering
Some transport protocols use existing protocols (e.g., TCP or UDP) as substrate. The match criteria for such protocols may rely upon the 'protocol' under 'l3', TCP/UDP match criteria, part of the TCP/UDP payload, or a combination thereof.¶
A new feature, called 'match
3.7. Match on MPLS Headers
The enhanced ACL module (Section 4) can be used to create rules to match against the MPLS fields of a packet. The MPLS header defined in [RFC3032] and [RFC5462] contains the following fields:¶
The augmented ACL module can be used by an operator to configure ACLs that match based upon the following data nodes:¶
3.8. VLAN Filtering
Being able to filter all packets that are bridged within a VLAN or that are routed into or out of a bridge domain is part of the VPN control requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7209].¶
All packets that are bridged within a VLAN or that are routed into or out of a VLAN can be captured, forwarded, translated, or discarded based on the network policy.¶
3.9. Instance Service Identifier (I-SID) Filtering
Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) was originally defined as a Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks standard [IEEE-802-1ah]. However, instead of multiplexing VLANs, PBB duplicates the Media Access Control (MAC) layer of the customer frame and separates it from the provider domain, by encapsulating it in a 24-bit Instance Service Identifier (I-SID). This provides more transparency between the customer network and the provider network.¶
The I-component forms the customer- or access-facing interface or routing instance. The I-component is responsible for mapping customer Ethernet traffic to the appropriate I-SID. It is mandatory to configure the default service identifier in the network.¶
Being able to filter by I-component service identifier is a feature of the EVPN-PBB configuration.¶
3.10. Additional Actions
In order to support rate-limiting (see Appendix A.6), a new action called 'rate-limit' is defined in this document.¶
Also, the "ietf-acl-enh" module supports new actions to complement existing ones: log ('log-action') and write a counter
4. Enhanced ACL YANG Module
This YANG module imports types from [RFC6991], [RFC8519], and [RFC8294].¶
5. Security Considerations
This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7.1 of [YANG-GUIDELINES].¶
The "ietf-acl-enh" YANG module defines a data model that is designed to be accessed via YANG-based management protocols, such as NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These YANG-based management protocols (1) have to use a secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and (2) have to use mutual authentication.¶
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol operations and content.¶
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
writable
- 'defined-sets':
-
These lists specify a set of IP addresses, port numbers, protocols, ICMP types, and aliases. Similar to [RFC8519], unauthorized write access to these lists can allow intruders to modify the entries to permit traffic that should not be permitted or deny traffic that should be permitted. The former may result in a DoS attack or compromise a device. The latter may result in a DoS attack.¶
These sets are defined with "nacm
:default -deny -write" tagging.¶
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. Specifically, the following subtrees
and data nodes have particular sensitivities
- 'defined-sets':
-
Unauthorized read access of these lists will allow an attacker to identify the actual resources that are bound to ACLs. Likewise, access to this information will help an attacker to better scope its attacks to target resources that are specific to a given network instead of performing random scans. Also, disclosing some of this information (e.g., IP addresses of core routers) may nullify the effect of topology-hiding strategies in some networks.¶
There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations.¶
The document defines a match policy based on a pattern that can be observed in a packet. For example, such a policy can be combined with header-based matches in the context of DDoS mitigation. Filtering based on a pattern match is deterministic for packets with unencrypted data. However, the efficiency for encrypted packets depends on the presence of an unvarying pattern. Readers may also refer to Section 11 of [RFC8329] for security considerations related to Network Security Functions (NSFs) that apply packet content matching.¶
The YANG modules "iana
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. URI Registrations
IANA has registered the following URIs in the "ns" registry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:¶
- URI:
- urn
:ietf :params :xml :ns :yang :ietf -acl -enh ¶ - Registrant Contact:
- The IESG¶
- XML:
- N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.¶
- URI:
- urn
:ietf :params :xml :ns :yang :iana -icmpv4 -types ¶ - Registrant Contact:
- The IESG¶
- XML:
- N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.¶
6.2. YANG Module Name Registrations
IANA has registered the following YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020] [RFC9890] within the "YANG Parameters" registry group.¶
- Name:
- ietf-acl-enh¶
- Maintained by IANA:
- N¶
- Namespace:
- urn
:ietf :params :xml :ns :yang :ietf -acl -enh ¶ - Prefix:
- acl-enh¶
- Reference:
- RFC 9899¶
- Name:
- iana
-icmpv4 -types ¶ - Maintained by IANA:
- Y¶
- Namespace:
- urn
:ietf :params :xml :ns :yang :iana -icmpv4 -types ¶ - Prefix:
- iana
-icmpv4 -types ¶ - Reference:
- RFC 9899¶
6.3. Considerations for IANA-Maintained Modules
6.3.1. ICMPv4 Types IANA Module
This document creates the initial version of the IANA-maintained
"iana
IANA has added this note to the registry:¶
New values must not be directly added to the "iana-icmpv4 -types" YANG module. They must instead be added to the "ICMP Type Numbers" registry [IANA-ICMPv4].¶
When a value is added to the "ICMP Type Numbers" registry, a new
"enum" statement must be added to the "iana
- "enum":
-
Replicates the name from the registry with all illegal characters (e.g., spaces) stripped.¶
- "value":
-
Contains the decimal value of the IANA-assigned value.¶
- "status":
-
Included only if a registration has been deprecated or obsoleted. IANA "deprecated" maps to YANG status "deprecated", and IANA "obsolete" maps to YANG status "obsolete".¶
- "description":
-
Replicates the name from the registry.¶
- "reference":
-
Replicates the reference(s) from the registry with the title of the document(s) added.¶
Unassigned, reserved, or values styled like those in [RFC3692] are not present in the module.¶
When the "iana
IANA has added this note to "ICMP Type Numbers" registry [IANA-ICMPv4] and listed this document as an additional reference for the registry:¶
When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-icmpv4 -types" [IANA -YANG ] must be updated as defined in RFC 9899.¶-PARAMETERS
6.3.2. ICMPv6 Types IANA Module
This document creates the initial version of the IANA-maintained
"iana
IANA has added this note to the registry:¶
New values must not be directly added to the "iana-icmpv6 -types" YANG module. They must instead be added to the "ICMPv6 "type" Numbers" registry [IANA-ICMPv6].¶
When a value is added to the "ICMPv6 "type" Numbers" registry, a
new "enum" statement must be added to the "iana
- "enum":
-
Replicates the name from the registry with all illegal characters (e.g., spaces) stripped.¶
- "value":
-
Contains the decimal value of the IANA-assigned value.¶
- "status":
-
Included only if a registration has been deprecated or obsoleted. IANA "deprecated" maps to YANG status "deprecated", and IANA "obsolete" maps to YANG status "obsolete".¶
- "description":
-
Replicates the name from the registry.¶
- "reference":
-
Replicates the reference(s) from the registry with the title of the document(s) added.¶
Unassigned, reserved, or private experimentation values are not present in the module.¶
When the "iana
IANA has added this note to the "ICMPv6 "type" Numbers" registry [IANA-ICMPv6] and listed this document as an additional reference for the registry:¶
When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-icmpv6 -types" [IANA -YANG ] must be updated as defined in RFC 9899.¶-PARAMETERS
6.3.3. IPv6 Extension Header Types IANA Module
This document creates the initial version of the IANA-maintained
"iana
IANA has added this note to the registry:¶
New values must not be directly added to the "iana-ipv6 -ext -types" YANG module. They must instead be added to the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry [IANA-IPv6].¶
When a value is added to the "IPv6 Extension Header Types"
registry, a new "enum" statement must be added to the
"iana
- "enum":
-
Replicates the description from the registry with all spaces stripped.¶
- "value":
-
Contains the decimal value of the IANA-assigned value.¶
- "status":
-
Included only if a registration has been deprecated or obsoleted. IANA "deprecated" maps to YANG status "deprecated", and IANA "obsolete" maps to YANG status "obsolete".¶
- "description":
-
Replicates the description from the registry.¶
- "reference":
-
Replicates the reference(s) from the registry with the title of the document(s) added.¶
Unassigned or reserved values are not present in the module.¶
When the "iana
IANA has added this note to the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry [IANA-IPv6] and listed this document as an additional reference for the registry:¶
When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-ipv6 -ext -types" [IANA -YANG ] must be updated as defined in RFC 9899.¶-PARAMETERS
7. References
7.1. Normative References
- [IANA-ICMPv4]
-
IANA, "ICMP Type Numbers", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /icmp -parameters - [IANA-ICMPv6]
-
IANA, "ICMPv6 "type" Numbers", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /icmpv6 -parameters - [IANA-IPv6]
-
IANA, "IPv6 Extension Header Types", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /ipv6 -parameters - [RFC0792]
-
Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC0792 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc792 - [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC3032]
-
Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3032 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3032 - [RFC3688]
-
Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3688 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3688 - [RFC4443]
-
Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4443 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4443 - [RFC5462]
-
Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5462 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5462 - [RFC6020]
-
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6020 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6020 - [RFC6991]
-
Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6991 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6991 - [RFC7950]
-
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7950 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7950 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8200]
-
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8200 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8200 - [RFC8294]
-
Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger, "Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8294 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8294 - [RFC8341]
-
Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8341 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8341 - [RFC8342]
-
Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8342 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8342 - [RFC8519]
-
Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair, "YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)", RFC 8519, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8519 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8519 - [RFC9293]
-
Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9293 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9293
7.2. Informative References
- [IANA-TCP-FLAGS]
-
IANA, "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Parameters", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /tcp -parameters - [IANA
-YANG -PARAMETERS] -
IANA, "YANG Parameters", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /yang -parameters - [IEEE-802-1ah]
-
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks Amendment 7: Provider Backbone Bridges", IEEE Std 802.1ah-2008, DOI 10
.1109 , , <https:///IEEESTD .2008 .4602826 doi >..org /10 .1109 /IEEESTD .2008 .4602826 - [IEEE802.1Qcp]
-
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks
--Bridges , IEEE Std 802.1Qcp-2018, DOI 10and Bridged Networks --Amendment 30: YANG Data Model" .1109 , , <https:///IEEESTD .2018 .8467507 doi >..org /10 .1109 /IEEESTD .2018 .8467507 - [RFC3692]
-
Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3692 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3692 - [RFC4252]
-
Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH) Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4252 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4252 - [RFC6241]
-
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6241 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6241 - [RFC7209]
-
Sajassi, A., Aggarwal, R., Uttaro, J., Bitar, N., Henderickx, W., and A. Isaac, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 7209, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7209 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7209 - [RFC8040]
-
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8040 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8040 - [RFC8329]
-
Lopez, D., Lopez, E., Dunbar, L., Strassner, J., and R. Kumar, "Framework for Interface to Network Security Functions", RFC 8329, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8329 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8329 - [RFC8340]
-
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8340 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8340 - [RFC8446]
-
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8446 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8446 - [RFC8955]
-
Loibl, C., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., and M. Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 8955, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8955 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8955 - [RFC8956]
-
Loibl, C., Ed., Raszuk, R., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6", RFC 8956, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8956 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8956 - [RFC9000]
-
Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9000 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9000 - [RFC9132]
-
Boucadair, M., Ed., Shallow, J., and T. Reddy.K, "Distributed Denial
-of , RFC 9132, DOI 10-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification" .17487 , , <https:///RFC9132 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9132 - [RFC9890]
-
Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., Ed., and Q. Wu, "An Update to YANG Module Names Registration", RFC 9890, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9890 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9890 - [YANG
-GUIDELINES] -
Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-netmod -rfc8407bis -28 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -netmod -rfc8407bis -28 - [YANG-XSLT]
-
"iana-yang", commit 3a6cb69, , <https://
github >..com /llhotka /iana -yang
Appendix A. Problem Statement and Gap Analysis
A.1. Suboptimal Configuration: Lack of Support for Lists of Prefixes
IP prefix-related data nodes (e.g., "destination
The same issue is encountered when ACLs have to be in place to mitigate DDoS attacks that involve a set of sources (e.g., [RFC9132]). The situation is even worse when both a list of sources and destination prefixes are involved in the filtering.¶
Figure 3 shows an example of the required ACL configuration for filtering traffic from two prefixes.¶
Such a configuration is suboptimal for both:¶
A.2. Manageability: Impossibility of Using Aliases or Defined Sets
The same approach as the one discussed for IP prefixes can be generalized by introducing the concept of "aliases" or "defined sets".¶
The defined sets are reusable definitions across several ACLs. Each category is modeled in YANG as a list of parameters related to the class it represents. The following sets can be considered:¶
- Prefix sets:
-
Used to create lists of IPv4 or IPv6 prefixes.¶
- Protocol sets:
-
Used to create a list of protocols.¶
- Port number sets:
-
Used to create lists of TCP or UDP port values (or any other transport protocol that makes uses of port numbers). The identity of the protocols is identified by the protocol set, if present. Otherwise, a set applies to any protocol.¶
- ICMP sets:
-
Used to create lists of ICMP-based filters. This applies only when the protocol is set to ICMP or ICMPv6.¶
Aliases may also be considered to manage resources that are identified by a combination of various parameters (e.g., prefix, protocol, port number, FQDN, or VLAN IDs). Note that some aliases can be provided by decomposing them into separate sets.¶
A.3. Bind ACLs to Devices, Not Only Interfaces
In the context of network management, an ACL may be enforced in many network locations. As such, the ACL module should allow for binding an ACL to multiple devices, not only (abstract) interfaces.¶
Thus, the ACL name must be unique at the scale of the network, but the same name may be used in many devices when enforcing node-specific ACLs.¶
A.4. Partial or Lack of IPv4/IPv6 Fragment Handling
[RFC8519] does not support fragment handling for IPv6 but offers a partial support for IPv4 through the use of 'flags'. Nevertheless, the use of 'flags' is problematic since it does not allow a bitmask to be defined. For example, setting other bits not covered by the 'flags' filtering clause in a packet will allow that packet to get through (because it won't match the ACE).¶
Defining a new IPv4/IPv6 matching field called 'fragment' is thus required to efficiently handle fragment
A.5. Suboptimal TCP Flags Handling
[RFC8519] supports including flags in the TCP match fields; however, that structure does not support matching operations as those supported in BGP Flow Spec. Defining this field as a flag bitmask together with a set of operations is meant to efficiently handle TCP flags filtering rules.¶
A.6. Rate-Limit Action
[RFC8519] specifies that forwarding actions can be 'accept' (i.e., accept matching traffic), 'drop' (i.e., drop matching traffic without sending any ICMP error message), or 'reject' (i.e., drop matching traffic and send an ICMP error message to the source). However, there are situations where the matching traffic can be accepted, but with a rate-limit policy. This capability is not supported by [RFC8519].¶
A.7. Payload-Based Filtering
Some transport protocols use existing protocols (e.g., TCP or UDP) as substrate. The match criteria for such protocols may rely upon the 'protocol' under 'l3', TCP/UDP match criteria, part of the TCP/UDP payload, or a combination thereof. [RFC8519] does not support matching based on the payload.¶
Likewise, the ACL model defined in [RFC8519] does not support filtering of encapsulated traffic.¶
A.8. Reuse the Content of ACLs Across Several Devices
Having a global network view of the ACLs is highly valuable for service providers. An ACL could be defined and applied based on the network topology hierarchy. Therefore, an ACL can be defined at the network level, and then that same ACL can be used in (or referenced to) several devices (including termination points) within the same network.¶
This network/device differentiation of ACLs introduces several new requirements, for example:¶
A.9. Match MPLS Headers
The ACLs can be used to create rules to match MPLS fields on a packet. [RFC8519] does not support such function.¶
Appendix B. Examples
This section provides a few examples to illustrate the use of the enhanced ACL module
B.1. TCP Flags Handling
Figure 4 shows an example of the message body of a request to install a filter to discard incoming TCP messages having all flags unset.¶
B.2. Fragments Handling
Figure 5 shows the content of a POST request to allow the traffic destined to 198.51.100.0/24 and UDP port number 53, but to drop all fragmented packets. The following ACEs are defined (in this order):¶
- "drop
-all -fragments" ACE: - discards all fragments.¶
- "allow
-dns -packets" ACE: - accepts DNS packets destined to 198
.51 .100 .0 /24 . ¶
Figure 6 shows an example of the body of a POST request to allow the traffic destined to 2001:db8::/32 and UDP port number 53, but to drop all fragmented packets. The following ACEs are defined (in this order):¶
B.3. Pattern-Based Filtering
Pattern-based filtering is useful to detect specific patterns, signatures, or encapsulated packets. Figure 7 shows an example of the message body of a request to install a filter to discard IP-in-IP encapsulated messages with an inner destination IP address equal to "2001:db8::1". By using the offset at the end of Layer 3, the rule targets a specific portion of the payload that starts 20 bytes after the beginning of the data (that is, skipping the first 20 bytes of the inner IPv6 header).¶
For the reader's convenience, the textual representation of the pattern is used in the example instead of the binary form.¶
B.4. VLAN Filtering
Figure 8 shows an ACL example to illustrate how to apply a VLAN range filter.¶
B.5. I-SID Filtering
Figure 9 shows an ACL example to illustrate the I-SID range filtering.¶
B.6. Rate-Limit
Figure 10 shows an ACL example to rate-limit incoming SYNs during a SYN flood attack.¶
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Jon Shallow and Miguel Cros for their review and comments on this document.¶
Thanks to Qiufang Ma, Victor Lopez, Joe Clarke, and Mahesh Jethanandani for their comments and suggestions.¶
Thanks to Lou Berger for shepherding this document.¶
Thanks to David Black for the tsvart review, Tim Wicinski for the intdir review, Per Andersson for the yangdoctors review, Russ Housley for the genart review, and Linda Dunbar and Sean Turner for the secdir reviews.¶
Thanks to Erik Kline, Mike Bishop, Éric Vyncke, Roman Danyliw, and Deb Cooley for the IESG review.¶
The IANA-maintained modules were generated using an XSLT stylesheet from the 'iana-yang' project [YANG-XSLT].¶
This work is partially supported by the European Commission under Horizon 2020 Secured autonomic traffic management for a Tera of SDN flows (Teraflow) project (grant agreement number 101015857).¶