1. January 2006Common Solutions Group1 Network Based Security Looking at the future of university networking…

2. January 2006Common Solutions Group2 CSG Network/Subnet Poll (1) Asked on –Ednog (ednog@puck.nether.net)ednog@puck.nether.net –Netguru http://security.internet2.edu/docs/internet2-salsa-topics-advanced-network-management-200511.html –Virtnet Heard from (in no particular order): –Berkeley, Columbia, UBuffalo, Stanford, UCLA, VT, Cornell, Yale, Duke, CMU, Northwestern, Colorado, UMich

3. January 2006Common Solutions Group3 CSG Network/Subnet Poll (2): Complicated technical issues – VLans, VLans, everywhere… History of subnetting for manageability –Smaller broadcast domains –Tracking addresses for abuse Future of subnetting for service differentiation –Traffic isolation for real and imagined safety –Differential firewall policy (users, services, multi-tier web services) –Pre-auth,.1x for vlan assignment, quarantine subnets –Isolated subnets for customer firewalling –Infrastructure devices - no need for remote access –Address preservation, RFC1918 (NAT-ed and not) –Networking ‘for-fee’

4. January 2006Common Solutions Group4 CSG Network/Subnet Poll (3) A few more issues –Spanning tree isn’t “a fun thing” –Vlans != subnets –Some campus trunks – mostly avoided –Need tools for VLAN management –Lots of ‘not-so-smart’ devices –Edge security is preferred, defense in depth is necessary –Need lots of tools – particular with dynamics –Didn’t ask the vpn question… –Didn’t ask the lambda question…

5. January 2006Common Solutions Group5 Asking a little differently… How many of you now, or in future will: Offer more than one class of network connectivity? Require VPN’s for remote access to many apps? Require network admission control (pre-access)? –For wired –For wireless Offer (or allow) subnet firewalls? Offer dedicated lambdas?

6. January 2006Common Solutions Group6 Stanford Governance Pressure University enterprise risk management Internal Audit & Info Security Officer External Audit of Systems Faculty Governance Committee Administrative Governance Committee

7. January 2006Common Solutions Group7

8. January 2006Common Solutions Group8 Key UW-Madison Strategies Deploy a three-zone network with clear standards and policies for each zone Build relationships and understanding between central net-admins, department net-admins, and other campus interests Empower (training and tools) department net- admins to manage things that are important to them using a powerful set of web-based network monitoring and administration tools

9. January 2006Common Solutions Group9 AANTS: Authorized Agent Network Tool Suite Loosely-coupled set of web-based utilities for network administration Tools are team-developed in-house, optimized toward local networking practices, driven by user need About 244 trained network administrators across campus Allow users (campus LAN administrators and network engineers) to manage network devices, change device configurations, troubleshoot, inspect traffic data, coordinate with users, and perform other network management tasks