path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9066.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        T. Reddy.K
Request for Comments: 9066                                        Akamai
Category: Standards Track                              M. Boucadair, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Orange
                                                              J. Shallow
                                                           December 2021


   Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal
                           Channel Call Home

Abstract

   This document specifies the Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling
   (DOTS) signal channel Call Home, which enables a Call Home DOTS
   server to initiate a secure connection to a Call Home DOTS client and
   to receive attack traffic information from the Call Home DOTS client.
   The Call Home DOTS server in turn uses the attack traffic information
   to identify compromised devices launching outgoing DDoS attacks and
   take appropriate mitigation action(s).

   The DOTS signal channel Call Home is not specific to home networks;
   the solution targets any deployment in which it is required to block
   DDoS attack traffic closer to the source(s) of a DDoS attack.

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://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9066.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Terminology
   3.  Applicability Scope
   4.  Coexistence of a Base DOTS Signal Channel and DOTS Call Home
   5.  DOTS Signal Channel Call Home
     5.1.  Procedure
     5.2.  DOTS Signal Channel Variations
       5.2.1.  Heartbeat Mechanism
       5.2.2.  Redirected Signaling
     5.3.  DOTS Signal Channel Extension
       5.3.1.  Mitigation Request
       5.3.2.  Address Sharing Considerations
   6.  DOTS Signal Call Home YANG Module
     6.1.  Tree Structure
     6.2.  YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR
     6.3.  YANG Module
   7.  IANA Considerations
     7.1.  DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Mappings Registry
     7.2.  New DOTS Conflict Cause
     7.3.  DOTS Signal Call Home YANG Module
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  Privacy Considerations
   10. References
     10.1.  Normative References
     10.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Some Home Network Issues
   Appendix B.  Disambiguating Base DOTS Signal vs. DOTS Call Home
   Acknowledgements
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) signal
   channel protocol [RFC9132] is used to carry information about a
   network resource or a network (or a part thereof) that is under a
   Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack [RFC4732].  Such
   information is sent by a DOTS client to one or multiple DOTS servers
   so that appropriate mitigation actions are undertaken on traffic
   deemed suspicious.  Various use cases are discussed in [RFC8903].

   However, [RFC9132] only covers how to mitigate when being attacked
   (i.e., protecting a network from inbound DDoS attacks).  It does not
   cover how to control the attacks close to their source(s) that are
   misusing network resources (i.e., outbound DDoS attacks).  In
   particular, the DOTS signal protocol does not discuss cooperative
   DDoS mitigation between the network hosting an attack source and the
   Internet Service Provider (ISP) to suppress the outbound DDoS attack
   traffic originating from that network.  As a reminder, the base basic
   DOTS architecture is depicted in Figure 1 (Section 2 of [RFC8811]).

                 +-----------+            +-------------+
                 | Mitigator | ~~~~~~~~~~ | DOTS Server |
                 +-----------+            +-------------+
                                                 |
                                                 |
                                                 |
                 +---------------+        +-------------+
                 | Attack Target | ~~~~~~ | DOTS Client |
                 +---------------+        +-------------+

                     Figure 1: Basic DOTS Architecture

   Appendix A details why the rise of Internet of Things (IoT) compounds
   the possibility of these being used as malicious actors that need to
   be controlled.  Similar issues can be encountered in enterprise
   networks, data centers, etc.  The ISP offering a DDoS mitigation
   service can detect outgoing DDoS attack traffic originating from its
   subscribers, or the ISP may receive filtering rules (e.g., using BGP
   Flowspec [RFC8955] [RFC8956]) from a transit provider to filter,
   block, or rate-limit DDoS attack traffic originating from the ISP's
   subscribers to a downstream target.  Nevertheless, the DOTS signal
   channel does not provide means for the ISP to request blocking such
   attacks close to the sources without altering legitimate traffic.
   This document fills that void by specifying an extension to the DOTS
   signal channel: DOTS signal channel Call Home.

      Note: Another design approach would be to extend the DOTS signal
      channel with a new attribute to explicitly indicate whether a
      mitigation request concerns an outbound DDoS attack.  In such an
      approach, it is assumed that a DOTS server is deployed within the
      domain that is hosting the attack source(s), while a DOTS client
      is enabled within an upstream network (e.g., access network).
      However, initiating a DOTS signal channel from an upstream network
      to a source network is complicated because of the presence of
      translators and firewalls.  Moreover, the use of the same signal
      channel to handle both inbound and outbound attacks complicates
      both the heartbeat and redirection mechanisms that are executed as
      a function of the attack direction (see Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2).
      Also, the DOTS server will be subject to fingerprinting (e.g.,
      using scanning tools) and DoS attacks (e.g., by having the DOTS
      server perform computationally expensive operations).  Various
      management and deployment considerations that motivate the Call
      Home functionality are listed in Section 1.1 of [RFC8071].

   "DOTS signal channel Call Home" (or "DOTS Call Home" for short)
   refers to a DOTS signal channel established at the initiative of a
   DOTS server thanks to a role reversal at the (D)TLS layer
   (Section 5.1).  That is, the DOTS server initiates a secure
   connection to a DOTS client and uses that connection to receive the
   attack traffic information (e.g., attack sources) from the DOTS
   client.

   A high-level DOTS Call Home functional architecture is shown in
   Figure 2.  Attack source(s) are within the DOTS server domain.

                                             Scope
                                   +.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.+
              +---------------+    :    +-------------+    :
              |    Alert      | ~~~:~~~ |  Call Home  |    :
              |               |    :    | DOTS client |    :
              +---------------+    :    +------+------+    :
                                   :           |           :
                                   :           |           :
                                   :           |           :
              +---------------+    :    +------+------+    :
              |    Attack     | ~~~:~~~ |  Call Home  |    :
              |   Source(s)   |    :    | DOTS server |    :
              +---------------+    :    +-------------+    :
                                   +.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.+

   Figure 2: Basic DOTS Signal Channel Call Home Functional Architecture

   DOTS agents involved in the DOTS Call Home otherwise adhere to the
   DOTS roles as defined in [RFC8612].  For clarity, this document uses
   "Call Home DOTS client" (or "Call Home DOTS server") to refer to a
   DOTS client (or DOTS server) deployed in a Call Home scenario
   (Figure 2).  Call Home DOTS agents may (or may not) be co-located
   with DOTS agents that are compliant with [RFC9132] (see Section 4 for
   more details).

   A Call Home DOTS client relies upon a variety of triggers to make use
   of the Call Home function (e.g., scrubbing the traffic from the
   attack source or receiving an alert from an attack target, a peer
   DDoS Mitigation System (DMS), or a transit provider).  The definition
   of these triggers is deployment specific.  It is therefore out of the
   scope of this document to elaborate on how these triggers are made
   available to a Call Home DOTS client.

   In a typical deployment scenario, the Call Home DOTS server is
   enabled on a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), which is aligned with
   recent trends to enrich the CPE with advanced security features.  For
   example, the DOTS Call Home service can be part of services supported
   by an ISP-managed CPE or a managed security service subscribed to by
   the user.  Unlike classic DOTS deployments [RFC8903], a Call Home
   DOTS server maintains a single DOTS signal channel session for each
   DOTS-capable upstream provisioning domain [DOTS-MULTIHOMING].

   For instance, the Call Home DOTS server in the home network initiates
   the signal channel Call Home in "idle" time; subsequently, the Call
   Home DOTS client in the ISP environment can initiate a mitigation
   request whenever the ISP detects there is an attack from a
   compromised device in the DOTS server domain (i.e., from within the
   home network).

   The Call Home DOTS server uses the DDoS attack traffic information to
   identify the compromised device in its domain that is responsible for
   launching the DDoS attack, optionally notifies a network
   administrator, and takes appropriate mitigation action(s).  For
   example, a mitigation action can be to quarantine the compromised
   device or block its traffic to the attack target(s) until the
   mitigation request is withdrawn.

   This document assumes that Call Home DOTS servers are provisioned
   with a way to know how to reach the upstream Call Home DOTS
   client(s), which could occur by a variety of means (e.g., [RFC8973]).
   The specification of such means are out of scope of this document.

   More information about the applicability scope of the DOTS signal
   channel Call Home is provided in Section 3.

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 reader should be familiar with the terms defined in Section 1.2
   of [RFC8612].

   "DDoS Mitigation System (DMS)" refers to a system that performs DDoS
   mitigation.

   "Base DOTS signal channel" refers to [RFC9132].

   The meaning of the symbols in YANG tree diagrams are defined in
   [RFC8340] and [RFC8791].

   (D)TLS is used for statements that apply to both Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) [RFC8446] and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
   [RFC6347] [DTLS13].  Specific terms are used for any statement that
   applies to either protocol alone.

3.  Applicability Scope

   The problems discussed in Section 1 may be encountered in many
   deployments (e.g., home networks, enterprise networks, transit
   networks, data centers).  The solution specified in this document can
   be used for those deployments to block DDoS attack traffic closer to
   the source(s) of the attack.  That is, attacks that are issued, e.g.,
   from within an enterprise network or a data center will thus be
   blocked before exiting these networks.

   An instantiation of the Call Home functional architecture is depicted
   in Figure 3.

                             +-------------+
                             |Attack Target|
                             +-----+-------+
                                   | /\      Target Network
             ......................|.||....................
                          .--------+-||-------.
                         (           ||        )-.
                       .'            ||           '
                       (  Internet   ||            )
                        (            ||          -'
                         '-(         ||          )
                            '------+-||---------'
             ......................|.||.....................
                          .--------+-||-------.      Network
                         (           ||        )-.  Provider
                       .' Call Home  ||           '   (DMS)
                       ( DOTS client ||            )
                        (            ||          -'
                         '-(         ||          )
                            '------+-||---------'
             ......................|.||.......................
                          .--------+-||-------. Source Network
                         (           ||        )-.
                       .' Call Home  ||           '
                       ( DOTS server || Outbound   )
                        (            ||   DDoS   -'
                         '-(         ||  Attack  )
                            '------+-||---------'
                                   | ||
                             +-----+-++----+
                             |Attack Source|
                             +-------------+

       Figure 3: DOTS Signal Channel Call Home Reference Architecture

   It is out of the scope of this document to identify an exhaustive
   list of such deployments.

   Call Home DOTS agent relationships are similar to those discussed in
   Section 2.3 of [RFC8811].  For example, multiple Call Home DOTS
   servers of the same domain can be associated with the same Call Home
   DOTS client.  A Call Home DOTS client may decide to contact these
   Call Home DOTS servers sequentially, fork a mitigation request to all
   of them, or select one Call Home DOTS server to place a mitigation
   request.  Such a decision is implementation specific.

   For some mitigations, feedback may be required from an administrator
   to confirm a filtering action.  The means to seek an administrator's
   consent are deployment specific.  Indeed, a variety of implementation
   options can be considered for any given Call Home DOTS deployment,
   such as push notifications using a dedicated application, Syslog,
   etc.  It is out of the scope of this document to make recommendations
   about how such interactions are implemented (see Figure 2).

   The Call Home DOTS server can be enabled on a border router or a
   dedicated appliance.  For the particular case of home networks, the
   Call Home DOTS server functionality can be enabled on a managed CPE
   or bundled with a CPE management application that is provided by an
   ISP to its subscribers.  These managed services are likely to be
   designed to hide the complexity of managing (including configuring)
   the CPE.  For example, managed CPEs support the means to notify the
   user when a new device is detected in order to seek confirmation as
   to whether or not access should be granted to the device.  These
   means can be upgraded to interface with the Call Home DOTS server.
   Customized settings can be configured by users to control the
   notifications (e.g., triggers, type) and default actions.

4.  Coexistence of a Base DOTS Signal Channel and DOTS Call Home

   The DOTS signal channel Call Home does not require or preclude the
   activation of the base DOTS signal channel [RFC9132].  Some sample
   deployment schemes are discussed in this section for illustration
   purposes.

   The network that hosts an attack source may also be subject to
   inbound DDoS attacks.  In that case, both the base DOTS signal
   channel and DOTS signal channel Call Home may be enabled as shown in
   Figure 4 (same DMS provider) or Figure 5 (distinct DMS providers).

               DOTS Signal Channel      Base DOTS
                   Call Home          Signal Channel
              +-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-++-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-+
              :          +------+ :: +------+          :
              :          | DOTS | :: | DOTS |          :
              :          |client| :: |server|          :
              :          +--+---+ :: +---+--+          :
              :     /\      |     ::     |             : Network
              :     ||      |     ::     |             :Provider
              :     ||      |     ::     |             :  (DMS)
           ...:.....||......|.....::.....|.............:........
           Outbound ||      |     ::     |       || Inbound
             DDoS   ||      |     ::     |       ||   DDoS
            Attack  ||      |     ::     |       \/  Attack
              :          +--+---+ :: +---+--+          :
              :          | DOTS | :: | DOTS |          :
              :          |server| :: |client|          :
              :          +------+ :: +------+          :
              +-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-++-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-+
                              Network #A

      Figure 4: Activation of a Base DOTS Signal Channel and Call Home
                            (Same DMS Provider)

   Note that a DMS provider may not be on the default forwarding path of
   inbound DDoS attack traffic targeting a network (e.g., Network #B in
   Figure 5).  Nevertheless, the DOTS signal channel Call Home requires
   the DMS provider to be on the default forwarding path of the outbound
   traffic from a given network.

               DOTS Signal Channel      Base DOTS
                   Call Home          Signal Channel
              +-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-++-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-+
              : Network  +------+ :: +------+   Third  :
              : Provider | DOTS | :: | DOTS |   Party  :
              :  (DMS)   |client| :: |server|    DMS   :
              :          +--+---+ :: +---+--+ Provider :
              :     /\      |     ::     |             :
              :     ||      |     ::     |             :
              :     ||      |     ::     |             :
           ...:.....||......|.....::.....|.............:........
           Outbound ||      |     ::     |       || Inbound
             DDoS   ||      |     ::     |       ||   DDoS
            Attack  ||      |     ::     |       \/  Attack
              :          +--+---+ :: +---+--+          :
              :          | DOTS | :: | DOTS |          :
              :          |server| :: |client|          :
              :          +------+ :: +------+          :
              +-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-++-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-+
                              Network #B

      Figure 5: Activation of a Base DOTS Signal Channel and Call Home
                          (Distinct DMS Providers)

   Figures 6 and 7 depict examples where the same node embeds both base
   DOTS and Call Home DOTS agents.  For example, a DOTS server and a
   Call Home DOTS client may be enabled on the same device within the
   infrastructure of a DMS provider (e.g., Node #i in Figure 6), or a
   DOTS client and a Call Home DOTS server may be enabled on the same
   device within a source network (e.g., Node #j with Network #D shown
   in Figure 7).

   Whether the same or distinct nodes are used to host base DOTS and
   Call Home DOTS agents is specific to each domain.

               DOTS Signal Channel      Base DOTS
                   Call Home          Signal Channel
              +-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-++-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-+
              :        +----------------------+        :
              :        |       Node #i        |        :
              :        | +------+    +------+ |        :
              :        | | DOTS |    | DOTS | |        :
              :        | |client|    |server| |        :
              :        | +--+---+    +---+--+ |        :
              :        +----|-----::-----|----+        : Network
              :     /\      |     ::     |             :Provider
              :     ||      |     ::     |             :  (DMS)
           ...:.....||......|.....::.....|.............:........
           Outbound ||      |     ::     |       || Inbound
             DDoS   ||      |     ::     |       ||   DDoS
            Attack  ||      |     ::     |       \/  Attack
              :          +--+---+ :: +---+--+          :
              :          | DOTS | :: | DOTS |          :
              :          |server| :: |client|          :
              :          +------+ :: +------+          :
              +-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-++-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-+
                              Network #C

      Figure 6: The Same Node Embedding a Call Home DOTS Client and a
                 DOTS Server at the Network Provider's Side

               DOTS Signal Channel      Base DOTS
                   Call Home          Signal Channel
              +-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-++-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-+
              :        +----------------------+        :
              :        |       Node #k        |        :
              :        | +------+    +------+ |        :
              :        | | DOTS |    | DOTS | |        :
              :        | |client|    |server| |        :
              :        | +--+---+    +---+--+ |        :
              :        +----|-----::-----|----+        : Network
              :     /\      |     ::     |             :Provider
              :     ||      |     ::     |             :  (DMS)
           ...:.....||......|.....::.....|.............:........
           Outbound ||      |     ::     |       || Inbound
             DDoS   ||      |     ::     |       ||   DDoS
            Attack  ||      |     ::     |       \/  Attack
              :        +----|-----::-----|----+        :
              :        | +--+---+    +---+--+ |        :
              :        | | DOTS |    | DOTS | |        :
              :        | |server|    |client| |        :
              :        | +------+    +------+ |        :
              :        |       Node #j        |        :
              :        +----------------------+        :
              +-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-++-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-+
                              Network #D

      Figure 7: The Same Node Embedding both a DOTS Client and a Call
                              Home DOTS Server

   Appendix B elaborates on the considerations to unambiguously
   distinguish DOTS messages that belong to each of these channels.

5.  DOTS Signal Channel Call Home

5.1.  Procedure

   The DOTS signal channel Call Home preserves all but one of the DOTS
   client/server roles in the DOTS protocol stack, as compared to the
   client-initiated DOTS signal channel protocol [RFC9132].  The role
   reversal that occurs is at the (D)TLS layer; that is, (1) the Call
   Home DOTS server acts as a DTLS client, and the Call Home DOTS client
   acts as a DTLS server; or (2) the Call Home DOTS server acts as a TLS
   client initiating the underlying TCP connection, and the Call Home
   DOTS client acts as a TLS server.  The Call Home DOTS server
   initiates a (D)TLS handshake to the Call Home DOTS client.

   For example, a home network element (e.g., home router) co-located
   with a Call Home DOTS server is the (D)TLS client.  That is, the Call
   Home DOTS server assumes the role of the (D)TLS client, but the
   network element's role as a DOTS server remains the same.

   Existing certificate chains and mutual authentication mechanisms
   between the DOTS agents are unaffected by the Call Home function.
   From a deployment standpoint, and given the scale of Call Home DOTS
   servers that may be involved, enabling means for automating the
   provisioning of credentials on Call Home DOTS servers to authenticate
   to the Call Home DOTS client is encouraged.  It is out of the scope
   of this document to elaborate on these means.

   Figure 8 illustrates a sample DOTS Call Home flow exchange:

              +-----------+                        +-----------+
              | Call Home |                        | Call Home |
              |    DOTS   |                        |    DOTS   |
              |   server  |                        |   client  |
              +-----+-----+                        +-----+-----+
              (D)TLS client                        (D)TLS server
                    |                                    |
                    |         1. (D)TLS connection       |
                    |----------------------------------->|
                    |         2. Mitigation request      |
                    |<-----------------------------------|
                    |              ...                   |

          Figure 8: DOTS Signal Channel Call Home Sequence Diagram

   The DOTS signal channel Call Home procedure is as follows:

   1.  If UDP transport is used, the Call Home DOTS server begins by
       initiating a DTLS connection to the Call Home DOTS client.

       If TCP is used, the Call Home DOTS server begins by initiating a
       TCP connection to the Call Home DOTS client.  Once connected, the
       Call Home DOTS server continues to initiate a TLS connection to
       the Call Home DOTS client.

       Peer DOTS agents may have mutual agreement to use a specific port
       number, such as by explicit configuration or dynamic discovery
       [RFC8973].  The interaction between the base DOTS signal channel
       and the Call Home is discussed in Appendix B.

       The Happy Eyeballs mechanism explained in Section 4.3 of
       [RFC9132] is used for initiating (D)TLS connections.

   2.  Using this (D)TLS connection, the Call Home DOTS client may
       request, withdraw, or retrieve the status of mitigation requests.
       The Call Home DOTS client supplies the source information by
       means of new attributes defined in Section 5.3.1.

       The heartbeat mechanism used for the DOTS Call Home deviates from
       the one defined in Section 4.7 of [RFC9132].  Section 5.2.1
       specifies the behavior to be followed by Call Home DOTS agents.


5.2.  DOTS Signal Channel Variations


5.2.1.  Heartbeat Mechanism

   Once the (D)TLS section is established between the DOTS agents, the
   Call Home DOTS client contacts the Call Home DOTS server to retrieve
   the session configuration parameters (Section 4.5 of [RFC9132]).  The
   Call Home DOTS server adjusts the "heartbeat-interval" to accommodate
   binding timers used by on-path NATs and firewalls.  Heartbeats will
   then be exchanged by the DOTS agents following the instructions
   retrieved using the signal channel session configuration exchange.

   It is the responsibility of Call Home DOTS servers to ensure that on-
   path translators/firewalls are maintaining a binding so that the same
   external IP address and/or port number is retained for the DOTS
   signal channel session.  A Call Home DOTS client MAY trigger their
   heartbeat requests immediately after receiving heartbeat probes from
   its peer Call Home DOTS server.

   When an outgoing attack that saturates the outgoing link from the
   Call Home DOTS server is detected and reported by a Call Home DOTS
   client, the latter MUST continue to use the DOTS signal channel even
   if no traffic is received from the Call Home DOTS server.

   If the Call Home DOTS server receives traffic from the Call Home DOTS
   client, the Call Home DOTS server MUST continue to use the DOTS
   signal channel even if the threshold of allowed missing heartbeats
   ("missing-hb-allowed") is reached.

   If the Call Home DOTS server does not receive any traffic from the
   peer Call Home DOTS client during the time span required to exhaust
   the maximum "missing-hb-allowed" threshold, the Call Home DOTS server
   concludes the session is disconnected.  Then, the Call Home DOTS
   server MUST try to establish a new DOTS signal channel session,
   preferably by resuming the (D)TLS session.

5.2.2.  Redirected Signaling

   A Call Home DOTS server MUST NOT support the redirected signaling
   mechanism as specified in Section 4.6 of [RFC9132] (i.e., a 5.03
   response that conveys an alternate DOTS server's Fully Qualified
   Domain Name (FQDN) or IP address(es)).  A Call Home DOTS client MUST
   silently discard such a message as only a Call Home DOTS server can
   initiate a new (D)TLS connection.

   If a Call Home DOTS client wants to redirect a Call Home DOTS server
   to another Call Home DOTS client, it MUST send a Non-confirmable PUT
   request to the predefined resource ".well-known/dots/redirect" with
   the following attributes in the body of the PUT request:

   alt-ch-client:  The FQDN of an alternate Call Home DOTS client.  It
      is also presented as a reference identifier for authentication
      purposes.

      This is a mandatory attribute for DOTS signal Call Home.  It MUST
      NOT be used for base DOTS signal channel operations.

   alt-ch-client-record:  List of IP addresses for the alternate Call
      Home DOTS client.  If no "alt-ch-client-record" is provided, the
      Call Home DOTS server passes the "alt-ch-client" name to a name
      resolution library to retrieve one or more IP addresses of the
      alternate Call Home DOTS client.

      This is an optional attribute for DOTS signal Call Home.  It MUST
      NOT be used for base DOTS signal channel operations.

   ttl:  The Time To Live (TTL) of the alternate Call Home DOTS client.
      That is, the time interval in which the alternate Call Home DOTS
      client may be cached for use by a Call Home DOTS server.

      This is an optional attribute for DOTS signal Call Home.  It MUST
      NOT be used for base DOTS signal channel operations.

   On receipt of this PUT request, the Call Home DOTS server responds
   with a 2.01 (Created), closes this connection, and establishes a
   connection with the new Call Home DOTS client.  The processing of the
   TTL is defined in Section 4.6 of [RFC9132].  If the Call Home DOTS
   server cannot service the PUT request, the response is rejected with
   a 4.00 (Bad Request).

   Figure 9 shows a PUT request example to convey the alternate Call
   Home DOTS client "alt-call-home-client.example" together with its IP
   addresses 2001:db8:6401::1 and 2001:db8:6401::2.  The validity of
   this alternate Call Home DOTS client is 10 minutes.

      Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
      Uri-Path: ".well-known"
      Uri-Path: "dots"
      Uri-Path: "redirect"
      Uri-Path: "cuid=dz6pHjaADkaFTbjr0JGBpw"
      Uri-Path: "mid=123"
      Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"

      {
        "ietf-dots-signal-channel:redirected-signal": {
          "ietf-dots-call-home:alt-ch-client":
                        "alt-call-home-client.example",
          "ietf-dots-call-home:alt-ch-client-record": [
             "2001:db8:6401::1",
             "2001:db8:6401::2"
           ],
          "ietf-dots-call-home:ttl": 600
      }

        Figure 9: Example of a PUT Request for Redirected Signaling

   Figure 9 uses the JSON encoding of YANG-modeled data for the CoAP
   message body.  The same encoding is used in Figure 10
   (Section 5.3.1).

5.3.  DOTS Signal Channel Extension

5.3.1.  Mitigation Request

   This specification extends the mitigation request defined in
   Section 4.4.1 of [RFC9132] to convey the attack source information
   (e.g., source prefixes, source port numbers).  The DOTS client
   conveys the following new parameters in the Concise Binary Object
   Representation (CBOR) body of the mitigation request:

   source-prefix:  A list of attacker IP prefixes used to attack the
      target.  Prefixes are represented using Classless Inter-Domain
      Routing (CIDR) notation (BCP 122 [RFC4632]).

      As a reminder, the prefix length MUST be less than or equal to 32
      (or 128) for IPv4 (or IPv6).

      The prefix list MUST NOT include broadcast, loopback, or multicast
      addresses.  These addresses are considered invalid values.  Note
      that link-local addresses are allowed.  The Call Home DOTS client
      MUST validate that attacker prefixes are within the scope of the
      Call Home DOTS server domain (e.g., prefixes assigned to the Call
      Home DOTS server domain or networks it services).  This check is
      meant to avoid contacting Call Home DOTS servers that are not
      entitled to enforce actions on specific prefixes.

      This is an optional attribute for the base DOTS signal channel
      operations.

   source-port-range:  A list of port numbers used by the attack traffic
      flows.

      A port range is defined by two bounds, a lower port number
      ("lower-port") and an upper port number ("upper-port").  When only
      "lower-port" is present, it represents a single port number.

      For TCP, UDP, Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
      [RFC4960], or Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
      [RFC4340], a range of ports can be any subrange of 0-65535 -- for
      example, 0-1023, 1024-65535, or 1024-49151.

      This is an optional attribute for the base DOTS signal channel
      operations.

   source-icmp-type-range:  A list of ICMP types used by the attack
      traffic flows.  An ICMP type range is defined by two bounds, a
      lower ICMP type (lower-type) and an upper ICMP type (upper-type).
      When only "lower-type" is present, it represents a single ICMP
      type.  Both ICMP [RFC0792] and ICMPv6 [RFC4443] types are
      supported.  Whether ICMP or ICMPv6 types are to be used is
      determined by the address family of the "target-prefix".

      This is an optional attribute for the base DOTS signal channel
      operations.

   The "source-prefix" parameter is a mandatory attribute when the
   attack traffic information is signaled by a Call Home DOTS client
   (i.e., the Call Home scenario depicted in Figure 8).  The "target-
   prefix" attribute MUST be included in the mitigation request
   signaling the attack information to a Call Home DOTS server.  The
   "target-uri" or "target-fqdn" parameters can be included in a
   mitigation request for diagnostic purposes to notify the Call Home
   DOTS server domain administrator but SHOULD NOT be used to determine
   the target IP addresses.  "alias-name" is unlikely to be conveyed in
   a Call Home mitigation request given that a target may be any IP
   resource and that there is no incentive for a Call Home DOTS server
   (embedded, for example, in a CPE) to maintain aliases.

   In order to help attack source identification by a Call Home DOTS
   server, the Call Home DOTS client SHOULD include in its mitigation
   request additional information such as "source-port-range" or
   "source-icmp-type-range" to disambiguate nodes sharing the same
   "source-prefix".  IPv6 addresses/prefixes are sufficient to uniquely
   identify a network endpoint, without need for port numbers or ICMP
   type information.  While this is also possible for IPv4, it is much
   less often the case than for IPv6.  More address sharing implications
   on the setting of source information ("source-prefix", "source-port-
   range") are discussed in Section 5.3.2.

   Only immediate mitigation requests (i.e., "trigger-mitigation" set to
   "true") are allowed; Call Home DOTS clients MUST NOT send requests
   with "trigger-mitigation" set to "false".  Such requests MUST be
   discarded by the Call Home DOTS server with a 4.00 (Bad Request).

   An example of a mitigation request sent by a Call Home DOTS client is
   shown in Figure 10.

     Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
     Uri-Path: ".well-known"
     Uri-Path: "dots"
     Uri-Path: "mitigate"
     Uri-Path: "cuid=dz6pHjaADkaFTbjr0JGBpw"
     Uri-Path: "mid=56"
     Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"

     {
       "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
         "scope": [
           {
             "target-prefix": [
                "2001:db8:c000::/128"
              ],
             "ietf-dots-call-home:source-prefix": [
                "2001:db8:123::1/128"
              ],
             "lifetime": 3600
           }
         ]
       }
     }

       Figure 10: An Example of a Mitigation Request Issued by a Call
                              Home DOTS Client

   The Call Home DOTS server MUST check that the "source-prefix" is
   within the scope of the Call Home DOTS server domain.  Note that in a
   DOTS Call Home scenario, the Call Home DOTS server considers, by
   default, that any routable IP prefix enclosed in "target-prefix" is
   within the scope of the Call Home DOTS client.  Invalid mitigation
   requests are handled as per Section 4.4.1 of [RFC9132].

      Note: These validation checks do not apply when the source
      information is included as a hint in the context of the base DOTS
      signal channel.

   Call Home DOTS server domain administrator consent MAY be required to
   block the traffic from the compromised device to the attack target.
   An implementation MAY have a configuration knob to block the traffic
   from the compromised device to the attack target with or without DOTS
   server domain administrator consent.

   If consent from the Call Home DOTS server domain administrator is
   required, the Call Home DOTS server replies with 2.01 (Created) and
   the "status" code set to 1 (attack-mitigation-in-progress).  Then,
   the mechanisms defined in Section 4.4.2 of [RFC9132] are followed by
   the DOTS agents to update the mitigation status.  In particular, if
   the attack traffic is blocked, the Call Home DOTS server informs the
   Call Home DOTS client that the attack is being mitigated (i.e., by
   setting the "status" code to 2 (attack-successfully-mitigated)).

   If the attack traffic information is identified by the Call Home DOTS
   server or the Call Home DOTS server domain administrator as
   legitimate traffic, the mitigation request is rejected with a 4.09
   (Conflict) (e.g., when no consent is required from an administrator)
   or a notification message with the "conflict-clause" (Section 4.4.1
   of [RFC9132]) set to the following new value:

   4:  Mitigation request rejected.  This code is returned by the DOTS
      server to indicate the attack traffic has been classified as
      legitimate traffic.

   Once the request is validated by the Call Home DOTS server,
   appropriate actions are enforced to block the attack traffic within
   the source network.  For example, if the Call Home DOTS server is
   embedded in a CPE, it can program the packet processor to punt all
   the traffic from the compromised device to the target to slow path.
   The CPE inspects the punted slow path traffic to detect and block the
   outgoing DDoS attack traffic or quarantine the device (e.g., using
   MAC-level filtering) until it is remediated and notifies the CPE
   administrator about the compromised device.  Note that the Call Home
   DOTS client is informed about the progress of the attack mitigation
   following the rules in Section 4.4.2 of [RFC9132].

   The DOTS agents follow the same procedures specified in [RFC9132] for
   managing a mitigation request.

5.3.2.  Address Sharing Considerations

   Figure 11 depicts an example of a network provider that hosts a Call
   Home DOTS client and deploys a Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) between the
   DOTS client domain and DOTS server domain.  In such cases,
   communicating an external IP address in a mitigation request by a
   Call Home DOTS client is likely to be discarded by the Call Home DOTS
   server because the external IP address is not visible locally to the
   Call Home DOTS server (Figure 11).  The Call Home DOTS server is only
   aware of the internal IP addresses/prefixes bound to its domain
   (i.e., those used in the internal realm shown in Figure 11).  Thus,
   Call Home DOTS clients that are aware of the presence of on-path CGNs
   MUST NOT include the external IP address and/or port number
   identifying the suspect attack source (i.e., those used in the
   external realm shown in Figure 11) but MUST include the internal IP
   address and/or port number.  To that aim, the Call Home DOTS client
   SHOULD rely on mechanisms, such as those described in [RFC8512] or
   [RFC8513], to retrieve the internal IP address and port number that
   are mapped to an external IP address and port number.  For the
   particular case of NAT64 [RFC6146], if the target address is an IPv4
   address, the IPv4-converted IPv6 address of this target address
   [RFC6052] SHOULD be used.

              N |        .-------------------.
              E |       (                     )-.
              T |     .'                         '
              W |     (        Call Home          )
              O |      (      DOTS client       -'
              R |       '-(                     )
              K |          '-------+-----------'
                |                  |
              P |                  |
              R |              +---+---+
              O |              |  CGN  |        External Realm
              V |..............|       |......................
              I |              |       |        Internal Realm
              D |              +---+---+
              E |                  |
              R |                  |
               ---                 |
                         .---------+---------.
                        (                     )-.
                      .'     Source Network      '
                      (                           )
                       (        Call Home        -'
                        '-(    DOTS server      )
                           '------+------------'
                                  |
                            +-----+-------+
                            |Attack Source|
                            +-------------+

              Figure 11: Example of a CGN between DOTS Domains

   If a Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) Border Relay [RFC7597] or
   Lightweight Address Family Transition Router (lwAFTR) [RFC7596] is
   enabled in the provider's domain to service its customers, the
   identification of an attack source bound to an IPv4 address/prefix
   MUST also rely on source port numbers because the same IPv4 address
   is assigned to multiple customers.  The port information is required
   to unambiguously identify the source of an attack.

   If a translator is enabled on the boundaries of the domain hosting
   the Call Home DOTS server (e.g., a CPE with NAT enabled as shown in
   Figures 12 and 13), the Call Home DOTS server uses the attack traffic
   information conveyed in a mitigation request to find the internal
   source IP address of the compromised device and blocks the traffic
   from the compromised device traffic to the attack target until the
   mitigation request is withdrawn.  The Call Home DOTS server proceeds
   with a NAT mapping table lookup using the attack information (or a
   subset thereof) as a key.  The lookup can be local (Figure 12) or via
   a dedicated administration interface that is offered by the CPE
   (Figure 13).  This identification allows the suspicious device to be
   isolated while avoiding disturbances of other services.

                            .-------------------.
                           (                     )-.
                         .'   Network Provider (DMS)'
                         (                           )
                          (        Call Home       -'
                           '-(    DOTS client      )
                              '-------+-----------'
                                      |
                  ---             +---+---+
                 S |              |  CPE  |  External Realm
                 O |..............|       |................
                 U |              |  NAT  |  Internal Realm
                 R |              +---+---+
                 C |                  |
                 E |        .---------+---------.
                   |       (                     )-.
                 N |     .'                         '
                 E |     (          Call Home        )
                 T |      (        DOTS server     -'
                 W |       '-(                     )
                 O |          '-------+-----------'
                 R |                  |
                 K |           +------+------+
                   |           |Attack Source|
                               +-------------+

     Figure 12: Example of a DOTS Server Domain with a NAT Embedded in
                                   a CPE

                          .-------------------.
                         (                     )-.
                       .'  Network Provider (DMS) '
                       (                           )
                        (        Call Home       -'
                         '-(    DOTS client      )
                            '---------+---------'
                                      |
                ---             +-----+-----+
               S |              |  CPE/NAT  |  External Realm
               O |..............|           |................
               U |              | Call Home |  Internal Realm
               R |              |DOTS server|
               C |              +-----+-----+
               E |                    |
                 |        .-----------+-------.
                 |       (                     )-.
               N |     .'                         '
               E |     (     Local Area Network    )
               T |      (                        -'
               W |       '-(                     )
               O |          '--------+----------'
               R |                   |
               K |            +------+------+
                 |            |Attack Source|
                              +-------------+

      Figure 13: Example of a Call Home DOTS Server and a NAT Embedded
                                  in a CPE

   If, for any reason, address sharing is deployed in both source and
   provider networks, both Call Home DOTS agents have to proceed with
   address mapping lookups following the behavior specified in reference
   to Figure 11 (network provider) and Figures 12 and 13 (source
   network).

6.  DOTS Signal Call Home YANG Module

6.1.  Tree Structure

   This document augments the "ietf-dots-signal-channel" (dots-signal)
   DOTS signal YANG module defined in [RFC9132] for signaling the attack
   traffic information.  This document defines the YANG module "ietf-
   dots-call-home", which has the following tree structure:

   module: ietf-dots-call-home

     augment-structure /dots-signal:dots-signal/dots-signal:message-type
                       /dots-signal:mitigation-scope/dots-signal:scope:
       +-- source-prefix*            inet:ip-prefix
       +-- source-port-range* [lower-port]
       |  +-- lower-port    inet:port-number
       |  +-- upper-port?   inet:port-number
       +-- source-icmp-type-range* [lower-type]
          +-- lower-type    uint8
          +-- upper-type?   uint8
     augment-structure /dots-signal:dots-signal/dots-signal:message-type
                       /dots-signal:redirected-signal:
       +-- (type)?
          +--:(call-home-only)
             +-- alt-ch-client           inet:domain-name
             +-- alt-ch-client-record*   inet:ip-address
             +-- ttl?                    uint32

6.2.  YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR

   The YANG/JSON mapping parameters to CBOR are listed in Table 1.

      Note: Implementers must check that the mapping output provided by
      their YANG-to-CBOR encoding schemes is aligned with the content of
      Table 1.

   +========================+=============+=====+=============+========+
   |Parameter Name          |YANG Type    |CBOR |CBOR Major   | JSON   |
   |                        |             |Key  |Type &       | Type   |
   |                        |             |Value|Information  |        |
   +========================+=============+=====+=============+========+
   |ietf-dots-call-         |leaf-list    |32768|4 array      | Array  |
   |home:source-prefix      |inet:ip-     |     |3 text string| String |
   |                        |prefix       |     |             |        |
   +------------------------+-------------+-----+-------------+--------+
   |ietf-dots-call-         |list         |32769|4 array      | Array  |
   |home:source-port-range  |             |     |             |        |
   +------------------------+-------------+-----+-------------+--------+
   |ietf-dots-call-         |list         |32770|4 array      | Array  |
   |home:source-icmp-type-  |             |     |             |        |
   |range                   |             |     |             |        |
   +------------------------+-------------+-----+-------------+--------+
   |lower-type              |uint8        |32771|0 unsigned   | Number |
   +------------------------+-------------+-----+-------------+--------+
   |upper-type              |uint8        |32772|0 unsigned   | Number |
   +------------------------+-------------+-----+-------------+--------+
   |ietf-dots-call-home:alt-|inet: domain-|32773|3 text string| String |
   |ch-client               |name         |     |             |        |
   +------------------------+-------------+-----+-------------+--------+
   |ietf-dots-call-home:alt-|leaf-list    |32774|4 array      | Array  |
   |ch-client-record        |inet:ip-     |     |3 text string| String |
   |                        |address      |     |             |        |
   +------------------------+-------------+-----+-------------+--------+
   |ietf-dots-call-home:ttl |uint32       |32775|0 unsigned   | Number |
   +------------------------+-------------+-----+-------------+--------+

               Table 1: YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR

   The YANG/JSON mappings to CBOR for "lower-port" and "upper-port" are
   already defined in Table 5 of [RFC9132].

6.3.  YANG Module

   This module uses the common YANG types defined in [RFC6991] and the
   data structure extension defined in [RFC8791].

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-dots-call-home@2021-12-09.yang"
   module ietf-dots-call-home {
     yang-version 1.1;
     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-call-home";
     prefix dots-call-home;

     import ietf-inet-types {
       prefix inet;
       reference
         "Section 4 of RFC 6991";
     }
     import ietf-dots-signal-channel {
       prefix dots-signal;
       reference
         "RFC 9132: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
                    Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification";
     }
     import ietf-yang-structure-ext {
       prefix sx;
       reference
         "RFC 8791: YANG Data Structure Extensions";
     }

     organization
       "IETF DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Working Group";
     contact
       "WG Web:   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dots/>
        WG List:  <mailto:dots@ietf.org>

        Author:  Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
                 <mailto:kondtir@gmail.com>;

        Author:  Mohamed Boucadair
                 <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;

        Author:  Jon Shallow
                 <mailto:ietf-supjps@jpshallow.com>";
     description
       "This module contains YANG definitions for the signaling
        messages exchanged between a DOTS client and a DOTS server
        for the Call Home deployment scenario.

        Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
        authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

        Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
        without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
        to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
        set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
        Relating to IETF Documents
        (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9066; see
        the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

     revision 2021-12-09 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
       reference
         "RFC 9066: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
                    Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Call Home";
     }
     sx:augment-structure "/dots-signal:dots-signal"
                        + "/dots-signal:message-type"
                        + "/dots-signal:mitigation-scope"
                        + "/dots-signal:scope" {
       description
         "Attack source details.";
       leaf-list source-prefix {
         type inet:ip-prefix;
         description
           "IPv4 or IPv6 prefix identifying the attack source(s).";
       }
       list source-port-range {
         key "lower-port";
         description
           "Port range. When only lower-port is
            present, it represents a single port number.";
         leaf lower-port {
           type inet:port-number;
           description
             "Lower port number of the port range.";
         }
         leaf upper-port {
           type inet:port-number;
           must '. >= ../lower-port' {
             error-message
               "The upper port number must be greater than
                or equal to the lower port number.";
           }
           description
             "Upper port number of the port range.";
         }
       }
       list source-icmp-type-range {
         key "lower-type";
         description
           "ICMP/ICMPv6 type range. When only lower-type is
            present, it represents a single ICMP/ICMPv6 type.

            The address family of the target-prefix is used
            to determine whether ICMP or ICMPv6 is used.";
         leaf lower-type {
           type uint8;
           description
             "Lower ICMP/ICMPv6 type of the ICMP type range.";
           reference
             "RFC 792: Internet Control Message Protocol
              RFC 4443: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)
                        for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
                        Specification.";
         }
         leaf upper-type {
           type uint8;
           must '. >= ../lower-type' {
             error-message
               "The upper ICMP/ICMPv6 type must be greater than
                or equal to the lower ICMP type.";
           }
           description
             "Upper type of the ICMP type range.";
           reference
             "RFC 792: Internet Control Message Protocol
              RFC 4443: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)
                        for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
                        Specification.";
         }
       }
     }
     sx:augment-structure "/dots-signal:dots-signal"
                        + "/dots-signal:message-type"
                        + "/dots-signal:redirected-signal" {
       description
         "Augments the redirected signal to communicate an
          alternate Call Home DOTS client.";
       choice type {
         description
           "Indicates the type of the DOTS session (e.g., base
            DOTS signal channel, DOTS Call Home).";
         case call-home-only {
           description
             "These attributes appear only in a signal Call Home
              channel message from a Call Home DOTS client
              to a Call Home DOTS server.";
           leaf alt-ch-client {
             type inet:domain-name;
             mandatory true;
             description
               "FQDN of an alternate Call Home DOTS client.

                This name is also presented as a reference
                identifier for authentication purposes.";
           }
           leaf-list alt-ch-client-record {
             type inet:ip-address;
             description
               "List of IP addresses for the alternate Call
                Home DOTS client.

                If this data node is not present, a Call Home
                DOTS server resolves the alt-ch-client into
                one or more IP addresses.";
           }
           leaf ttl {
             type uint32;
             units "seconds";
             description
               "The Time To Live (TTL) of the alternate Call Home
                DOTS client.";
             reference
               "Section 4.6 of RFC 9132";
           }
         }
       }
     }
   }
   <CODE ENDS>

7.  IANA Considerations


7.1.  DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Mappings Registry

   This specification registers the following comprehension-optional
   parameters (Table 2) in the IANA "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key
   Values" registry [Key-Map].

    +========================+=======+=======+============+===========+
    | Parameter Name         | CBOR  | CBOR  | Change     | Reference |
    |                        | Key   | Major | Controller |           |
    |                        | Value | Type  |            |           |
    +========================+=======+=======+============+===========+
    | ietf-dots-call-        | 32768 | 4     | IESG       | RFC 9066  |
    | home:source-prefix     |       |       |            |           |
    +------------------------+-------+-------+------------+-----------+
    | ietf-dots-call-        | 32769 | 4     | IESG       | RFC 9066  |
    | home:source-port-range |       |       |            |           |
    +------------------------+-------+-------+------------+-----------+
    | ietf-dots-call-        | 32770 | 4     | IESG       | RFC 9066  |
    | home:source-icmp-type- |       |       |            |           |
    | range                  |       |       |            |           |
    +------------------------+-------+-------+------------+-----------+
    | lower-type             | 32771 | 0     | IESG       | RFC 9066  |
    +------------------------+-------+-------+------------+-----------+
    | upper-type             | 32772 | 0     | IESG       | RFC 9066  |
    +------------------------+-------+-------+------------+-----------+
    | ietf-dots-call-        | 32773 | 3     | IESG       | RFC 9066  |
    | home:alt-ch-client     |       |       |            |           |
    +------------------------+-------+-------+------------+-----------+
    | ietf-dots-call-        | 32774 | 4     | IESG       | RFC 9066  |
    | home:alt-ch-client-    |       |       |            |           |
    | record                 |       |       |            |           |
    +------------------------+-------+-------+------------+-----------+
    | ietf-dots-call-home:   | 32775 | 0     | IESG       | RFC 9066  |
    | ttl                    |       |       |            |           |
    +------------------------+-------+-------+------------+-----------+

           Table 2: Assigned DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values

7.2.  New DOTS Conflict Cause

   Per this document, IANA has assigned a new code from the "DOTS Signal
   Channel Conflict Cause Codes" registry [Cause].

   +====+=====================================+=============+==========+
   |Code| Label                               |Description  |Reference |
   +====+=====================================+=============+==========+
   |4   | request-rejected-legitimate-traffic |Mitigation   |RFC 9066  |
   |    |                                     |request      |          |
   |    |                                     |rejected.    |          |
   |    |                                     |This code is |          |
   |    |                                     |returned by  |          |
   |    |                                     |the DOTS     |          |
   |    |                                     |server to    |          |
   |    |                                     |indicate the |          |
   |    |                                     |attack       |          |
   |    |                                     |traffic has  |          |
   |    |                                     |been         |          |
   |    |                                     |classified as|          |
   |    |                                     |legitimate   |          |
   |    |                                     |traffic.     |          |
   +----+-------------------------------------+-------------+----------+

         Table 3: Assigned DOTS Signal Channel Conflict Cause Code


7.3.  DOTS Signal Call Home YANG Module

   Per this document, IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns"
   subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-call-home
   Registrant Contact:  The IETF.
   XML:  N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

   Per this document, IANA has registered the following YANG module in
   the "YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG
   Parameters" registry:

   name:  ietf-dots-call-home
   namespace:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-call-home
   maintained by IANA:  N
   prefix:  dots-call-home
   reference:  RFC 9066

8.  Security Considerations

   This document deviates from classic DOTS signal channel usage by
   having the DOTS server initiate the (D)TLS connection.  Security
   considerations related to the DOTS signal channel discussed in
   Section 11 of [RFC9132] and (D)TLS early data discussed in Section 7
   of [RFC9132] MUST be considered.  DOTS agents MUST authenticate each
   other using (D)TLS before a DOTS signal channel session is considered
   valid.

   The Call Home function enables a Call Home DOTS server to be
   reachable by only the intended Call Home DOTS client.  Appropriate
   filters (e.g., access control lists) can be installed on the Call
   Home DOTS server and network between the Call Home DOTS agents so
   that only communications from a trusted Call Home DOTS client to the
   Call Home DOTS server are allowed.  These filters can be
   automatically installed by a Call Home DOTS server based on the
   configured or discovered peer Call Home DOTS client(s).

   An attacker may launch a DoS attack on the DOTS client by having it
   perform computationally expensive operations before deducing that the
   attacker doesn't possess a valid key.  For instance, in TLS 1.3
   [RFC8446], the ServerHello message contains a key share value based
   on an expensive asymmetric key operation for key establishment.
   Common precautions mitigating DoS attacks are recommended, such as
   temporarily adding the source address to a drop-list after a set
   number of unsuccessful authentication attempts.

   The DOTS signal Call Home channel can be misused by a misbehaving
   Call Home DOTS client by arbitrarily signaling legitimate traffic as
   being attack traffic or falsifying mitigation signals so that some
   sources are disconnected or some traffic is rate-limited.  Such
   misbehaving Call Home DOTS clients may include sources identified by
   IP addresses that are used for internal use only (that is, these
   addresses are not visible outside a Call Home DOTS server domain).
   Absent explicit policy (e.g., the Call Home DOTS client and server
   are managed by the same administrative entity), such requests should
   be discarded by the Call Home DOTS server.  More generally, Call Home
   DOTS servers should not blindly trust mitigation requests from Call
   Home DOTS clients.  For example, Call Home DOTS servers could use the
   attack flow information contained in a mitigation request to enable a
   full-fledged packet inspection function to inspect all the traffic
   from the compromised device to the target.  They could also redirect
   the traffic from the potentially compromised device to the target
   towards a DDoS mitigation system that can scrub the suspicious
   traffic without blindly blocking all traffic from the indicated
   attack source to the target.  Call Home DOTS servers can also seek
   the consent of the DOTS server domain administrator to block the
   traffic from the potentially compromised device to the target (see
   Section 5.3.1).  The means to seek consent are implementation
   specific.

   Call Home DOTS agents may interact with on-path address sharing
   functions to retrieve an internal IP address / external IP address
   mapping (Section 5.3.2) identifying an attack source.  Blocking
   access or manipulating the mapping information will complicate DDoS
   attack mitigation close to an attack source.  Additional security
   considerations are specific to the actual mechanism used to access
   that mapping (refer, e.g., to Section 4 of [RFC8512] or Section 4 of
   [RFC8513]).

   This document augments YANG data structures that are meant to be used
   as an abstract representation of DOTS signal channel Call Home
   messages.  As such, the "ietf-dots-call-home" module does not
   introduce any new vulnerabilities beyond those specified above and in
   [RFC9132].

9.  Privacy Considerations

   The considerations discussed in [RFC6973] were taken into account to
   assess whether the DOTS Call Home introduces privacy threats.

   Concretely, the protocol does not leak any new information that can
   be used to ease surveillance.  In particular, the Call Home DOTS
   server is not required to share information that is local to its
   network (e.g., internal identifiers of an attack source) with the
   Call Home DOTS client.  Also, the recommended data to be included in
   Call Home DOTS messages is a subset of the Layer 3 / Layer 4
   information that can be learned from the overall traffic flows that
   exit the Call Home DOTS server domain.  Furthermore, Call Home DOTS
   clients do not publicly reveal attack identification information;
   that information is encrypted and only shared with an authorized
   entity in the domain to which the IP address/prefix is assigned, from
   which an attack was issued.

   The DOTS Call Home does not preclude the validation of mitigation
   requests received from a Call Home DOTS client.  For example, a
   security service running on the CPE may require an administrator's
   consent before the CPE acts upon the mitigation request indicated by
   the Call Home DOTS client.  How the consent is obtained is out of
   scope of this document.

   Note that a Call Home DOTS server can seek an administrator's
   consent, validate the request by inspecting the relevant traffic for
   attack signatures, or proceed with both courses of action.

   The DOTS Call Home is only advisory in nature.  Concretely, the DOTS
   Call Home does not impose any action to be enforced within the
   network hosting an attack source; it is up to the Call Home DOTS
   server (and/or network administrator) to decide whether and which
   actions are required.

   Moreover, the DOTS Call Home avoids misattribution by appropriately
   identifying the network to which a suspect attack source belongs
   (e.g., address sharing issues discussed in Section 5.3.1).

   Triggers to send a DOTS mitigation request to a Call Home DOTS server
   are deployment specific.  For example, a Call Home DOTS client may
   rely on the output of some DDoS detection systems (flow exports or
   similar functions) deployed within the DOTS client domain to detect
   potential outbound DDoS attacks or may rely on abuse claims received
   from remote victim networks.  These systems may be misused to track
   users and infer their activities.  Such misuses are not required to
   achieve the functionality defined in this document (that is, protect
   the Internet and avoid altering the IP reputation of source
   networks).  It is out of the scope to identify privacy threats
   specific to given attack detection technology.  The reader may refer,
   for example, to Section 11.8 of [RFC7011].

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <https://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/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://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/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.

   [RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
              RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8791]  Bierman, A., Björklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Data
              Structure Extensions", RFC 8791, DOI 10.17487/RFC8791,
              June 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8791>.

   [RFC9132]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Shallow, J., and T. Reddy.K,
              "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling
              (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", RFC 9132,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9132, September 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9132>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [Cause]    IANA, "DOTS Signal Channel Conflict Cause Codes",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dots/>.

   [DOTS-MULTIHOMING]
              Boucadair, M., Reddy, T., and W. Pan, "Multi-homing
              Deployment Considerations for Distributed-Denial-of-
              Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-09, 2 December
              2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              dots-multihoming-09>.

   [DTLS13]   Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-
              dtls13-43, 30 April 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              dtls13-43>.

   [I2NSF-TERMS]
              Hares, S., Strassner, J., Lopez, D. R., Xia, L., and H.
              Birkholz, "Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF)
              Terminology", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08, 5 July 2019,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-
              terminology-08>.

   [Key-Map]  IANA, "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dots/>.

   [RFC2663]  Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
              Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
              RFC 2663, DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2663>.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.

   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.

   [RFC4732]  Handley, M., Ed., Rescorla, E., Ed., and IAB, "Internet
              Denial-of-Service Considerations", RFC 4732,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4732, December 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4732>.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.

   [RFC6398]  Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
              Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, DOI 10.17487/RFC6398, October
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC7011]  Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
              "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
              Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
              RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.

   [RFC7596]  Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
              Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
              Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
              July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.

   [RFC7597]  Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
              Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
              Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.

   [RFC8071]  Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home",
              RFC 8071, DOI 10.17487/RFC8071, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8071>.

   [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
              BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.

   [RFC8512]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar, S., Jacquenet, C.,
              Vinapamula, S., and Q. Wu, "A YANG Module for Network
              Address Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation
              (NPT)", RFC 8512, DOI 10.17487/RFC8512, January 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8512>.

   [RFC8513]  Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and S. Sivakumar, "A YANG
              Data Model for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)", RFC 8513,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8513, January 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8513>.

   [RFC8517]  Dolson, D., Ed., Snellman, J., Boucadair, M., Ed., and C.
              Jacquenet, "An Inventory of Transport-Centric Functions
              Provided by Middleboxes: An Operator Perspective",
              RFC 8517, DOI 10.17487/RFC8517, February 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8517>.

   [RFC8576]  Garcia-Morchon, O., Kumar, S., and M. Sethi, "Internet of
              Things (IoT) Security: State of the Art and Challenges",
              RFC 8576, DOI 10.17487/RFC8576, April 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8576>.

   [RFC8612]  Mortensen, A., Reddy, T., and R. Moskowitz, "DDoS Open
              Threat Signaling (DOTS) Requirements", RFC 8612,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8612, May 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8612>.

   [RFC8811]  Mortensen, A., Ed., Reddy.K, T., Ed., Andreasen, F.,
              Teague, N., and R. Compton, "DDoS Open Threat Signaling
              (DOTS) Architecture", RFC 8811, DOI 10.17487/RFC8811,
              August 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8811>.

   [RFC8903]  Dobbins, R., Migault, D., Moskowitz, R., Teague, N., Xia,
              L., and K. Nishizuka, "Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat
              Signaling", RFC 8903, DOI 10.17487/RFC8903, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8903>.

   [RFC8955]  Loibl, C., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., and M.
              Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules",
              RFC 8955, DOI 10.17487/RFC8955, December 2020,
              <https://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/RFC8956, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8956>.

   [RFC8973]  Boucadair, M. and T. Reddy.K, "DDoS Open Threat Signaling
              (DOTS) Agent Discovery", RFC 8973, DOI 10.17487/RFC8973,
              January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8973>.

   [RS]       RSnake, "Slowloris HTTP DoS",
              <https://web.archive.org/web/20150315054838/
              http://ha.ckers.org/slowloris/>.

   [Sec-by-design]
              UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, "Secure
              by Design: Improving the cyber security of consumer
              Internet of Things Report", March 2018,
              <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secure-by-
              design-report>.

Appendix A.  Some Home Network Issues

   Internet of Things (IoT) devices are becoming more and more
   prevalent, in particular in home networks.  With compute and memory
   becoming cheaper and cheaper, various types of IoT devices become
   available in the consumer market at affordable prices.  But on the
   downside, there is a corresponding threat since most of these IoT
   devices are bought off-the-shelf and most manufacturers haven't
   considered security in the product design (e.g., [Sec-by-design]).
   IoT devices deployed in home networks can be easily compromised, they
   often do not have an easy mechanism to upgrade, and even when
   upgradable, IoT manufacturers may cease manufacture and/or
   discontinue patching vulnerabilities on IoT devices (Sections 5.4 and
   5.5 of [RFC8576]).  These vulnerable and compromised devices will
   continue to be used for a long period of time in the home, and the
   end-user does not know that IoT devices in his/her home are
   compromised.  The compromised IoT devices are typically used for
   launching DDoS attacks (Section 3 of [RFC8576]) on victims while the
   owner/administrator of the home network is not aware about such
   misbehaviors.  Similar to other DDoS attacks, the victim in this
   attack can be an application server, a host, a router, a firewall, or
   an entire network.  Such misbehaviors can cause collateral damage
   that will affect end users, and can also harm the reputation of an
   Internet Service Provider (ISP) for being a source of attack traffic.

   Nowadays, network devices in a home network can offer network
   security functions (e.g., firewall [RFC4949] or Intrusion Protection
   System (IPS) service [I2NSF-TERMS] on a home router) to protect the
   devices connected to the home network from both external and internal
   attacks.  It is natural to seek to provide DDoS defense in these
   devices as well, and over the years several techniques have been
   identified to detect DDoS attacks; some of these techniques can be
   enabled on home network devices but most of them are used within the
   ISP's network.

   Some of the DDoS attacks like spoofed RST or FIN packets, Slowloris
   [RS], and Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation are difficult
   to detect on a home network device without adversely affecting its
   performance.  The reason is that typically home devices such as home
   routers have fast path to boost the throughput.  For every new TCP/
   UDP flow, only the first few packets are punted through the slow
   path.  Hence, it is not possible to detect various DDoS attacks in
   the slow path, since the attack payload is sent to the target server
   after the flow is switched to fast path.  The reader may refer to
   Section 2 of [RFC6398] for a brief definition of slow and fast paths.

   Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) of all the packets of a flow would be
   able to detect some of the attacks.  However, a full-fledged DPI to
   detect these type of DDoS attacks is functionally or operationally
   not possible for all the devices attached to the home network because
   of the memory and CPU limitations of the home routers.  Furthermore,
   for certain DDoS attacks the logic needed to distinguish legitimate
   traffic from attack traffic on a per-packet basis is complex.  This
   complexity is because that the packet itself may look "legitimate"
   and no attack signature can be identified.  The anomaly can be
   identified only after detailed statistical analysis.  In addition,
   network security services in home networks may not be able to detect
   all types of DDoS attacks using DPI.  ISPs offering DDoS mitigation
   services have a DDoS detection capability that relies upon anomaly
   detection to identify zero day DDoS attacks and to detect DDoS
   attacks that cannot be detected using signatures and rate-limit
   techniques.

   ISPs can detect some DDoS attacks originating from a home network
   (e.g., Section 2.6 of [RFC8517]), but the ISP usually does not have a
   mechanism to detect which device in the home network is generating
   the DDoS attack traffic.  The primary reason for this is that devices
   in an IPv4 home network are typically behind a Network Address
   Translation (NAT) border [RFC2663].  Even in case of an IPv6 home
   network, although the ISP can identify the infected device in the
   home network launching the DDoS traffic by tracking its unique IPv6
   address, the infected device can easily change its IPv6 address to
   evade remediation.  A security function on the local home network is
   better positioned to track the compromised device across IPv6 address
   (and potentially even MAC address) changes and thus ensure that
   remediation remains in place across such events.

Appendix B.  Disambiguating Base DOTS Signal vs. DOTS Call Home

   With the DOTS signal channel Call Home, there is a chance that two
   DOTS agents can simultaneously establish two DOTS signal channels
   with different directions (base DOTS signal channel and DOTS signal
   channel Call Home).  Here is one example drawn from the home network.
   Nevertheless, the outcome of the discussion is not specific to these
   networks, but applies to any DOTS Call Home scenario.

   In the Call Home scenario, the Call Home DOTS server in, for example,
   the home network can mitigate the DDoS attacks launched by the
   compromised device in its domain by receiving the mitigation request
   sent by the Call Home DOTS client in the ISP environment.  In
   addition, the DOTS client in the home network can initiate a
   mitigation request to the DOTS server in the ISP environment to ask
   for help when the home network is under a DDoS attack.  Such Call
   Home DOTS server and DOTS client in the home network can co-locate in
   the same home network element (e.g., the Customer Premises
   Equipment).  In this case, with the same peer at the same time the
   home network element will have the base DOTS signal channel defined
   in [RFC9132] and the DOTS signal channel Call Home defined in this
   specification.  Thus, these two signal channels need to be
   distinguished when they are both supported.  Two approaches have been
   considered for distinguishing the two DOTS signal channels, but only
   the one that using the dedicated port number has been chosen as the
   best choice.

   By using a dedicated port number for each, these two signal channels
   can be separated unambiguously and easily.  For example, the CPE uses
   the port number 4646 allocated in [RFC9132] to initiate the basic
   signal channel to the ISP when it acts as the DOTS client, and uses
   another port number to initiate the signal channel Call Home.  Based
   on the different port numbers, the ISP can directly decide which kind
   of procedures should follow immediately after it receives the DOTS
   messages.  This approach just requires two (D)TLS sessions to be
   established respectively for the basic signal channel and signal
   channel Call Home.

   The other approach is signaling the role of each DOTS agent (e.g., by
   using the DOTS data channel as depicted in Figure 14).  For example,
   the DOTS agent in the home network first initiates a DOTS data
   channel to the peer DOTS agent in the ISP environment, at this time
   the DOTS agent in the home network is the DOTS client and the peer
   DOTS agent in the ISP environment is the DOTS server.  After that,
   the DOTS agent in the home network retrieves the DOTS Call Home
   capability of the peer DOTS agent.  If the peer supports the DOTS
   Call Home, the DOTS agent needs to subscribe to the peer to use this
   extension.  Then, the reversal of DOTS role can be recognized as done
   by both DOTS agents.  When the DOTS agent in the ISP environment,
   which now is the DOTS client, wants to filter the attackers' traffic,
   it requests the DOTS agent in the home network, which now is the DOTS
   server, for help.

     augment /ietf-data:dots-data/ietf-data:capabilities:
         +--ro call-home-support?   boolean
       augment /ietf-data:dots-data/ietf-data:dots-client:
         +--rw call-home-enable?   boolean

            Figure 14: Example of DOTS Data Channel Augmentation

   Signaling the role will complicate the DOTS protocols, and this
   complexity is not required in context where the DOTS Call Home is not
   required or only when the DOTS Call Home is needed.  Besides, the
   DOTS data channel may not work during attack time.  Even if changing
   the above example from using the DOTS data channel to the DOTS signal
   channel, the more procedures will still reduce the efficiency.  Using
   the dedicated port number is much easier and more concise compared to
   the second approach, and its cost that establishing two (D)TLS
   sessions is much less.  So, using a dedicated port number for the
   DOTS Call Home is recommended in this specification.  The dedicated
   port number can be configured locally or discovered using means such
   as [RFC8973].

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Wei Pei, Xia Liang, Roman Danyliw, Dan Wing, Toema
   Gavrichenkov, Daniel Migault, Sean Turner, and Valery Smyslov for the
   comments.

   Benjamin Kaduk's AD review is valuable.  Many thanks to him for the
   detailed review.

   Thanks to Radia Perlman and David Schinazi for the directorate
   reviews.

   Thanks to Ebben Aries for the YANG Doctors review.

   Thanks to Éric Vyncke, Roman Danyliw, Barry Leiba, Robert Wilton, and
   Erik Kline for the IESG review.

Contributors

   The following individuals have contributed to this document:

   Joshi Harsha
   McAfee, Inc.
   Embassy Golf Link Business Park
   Bangalore 560071
   Karnataka
   India

   Email: harsha_joshi@mcafee.com


   Wei Pan
   Huawei Technologies
   China

   Email: william.panwei@huawei.com


Authors' Addresses

   Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
   Akamai
   Embassy Golf Link Business Park
   Bangalore 560071
   Karnataka
   India

   Email: kondtir@gmail.com


   Mohamed Boucadair (editor)
   Orange
   35000 Rennes
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Jon Shallow
   United Kingdom

   Email: supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com