SCION Deployment Issues

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 January 2025.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2024 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.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The goal of this draft is two-fold: it tries to document lessons learned in deploying SCION to some if its productive early adopters, and it tries to tries to answer questions 2.7 - Operating a Path-Aware Network, and 2.8 - Deploying a Path-Aware Network posed in [RFC9217].¶

Note: This is the very first version of the SCION deployment draft, and it merely contains a skeleton of potential topics to be further discussed in this draft. Any feedback is welcome and much appreciated. Thanks!¶

• This draft assumes the reader is familiar with the overall core SCION specification, outlined in [I-D.scion-dataplane], [I-D.scion-cppki], [I-D.scion-cp].¶

2. Conventions and Definitions

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.¶

3. Deployment Models

4. Establishing and running an Isolation Domain

See F. Steinmann presentation IETF118 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-118-panrg-scion-deployment-experience-the-secure-swiss-finance-network-ssfn¶

5. Establishing and running a SCION network

6. Adding and removing networks from an Isolation Domain

7. Connecting to other Isolation Domains

8. Performance Monitoring

9. Security Considerations

10. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.¶

11. Normative References

[I-D.scion-cp]

de Kater, C., Rustignoli, N., and S. Hitz, "SCION Control Plane", 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dekater-scion-controlplane/>.

[I-D.scion-cppki]

de Kater, C., Rustignoli, N., and S. Hitz, "SCION Control-Plane PKI", 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dekater-scion-pki/>.

[I-D.scion-dataplane]

de Kater, C., Rustignoli, N., and S. Hitz, "SCION Data Plane", 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dekater-scion-dataplane/>.

[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/rfc/rfc2119>.

[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/rfc/rfc8174>.

[RFC9217]

Trammell, B., "Current Open Questions in Path-Aware Networking", RFC 9217, DOI 10.17487/RFC9217, March 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9217>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.¶

Authors' Addresses