Re: [6lo] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-04

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 26 November 2019 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E39120106; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:28:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hrsz53rHPaLu; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AF6912012A; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id q1so17583405ile.13; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:28:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g2qNDhBO2Icxvqr07q2a8nZGDIejvA7MOs+tJKOFyYM=; b=WZfETtFL9WLp8G7Jx+s39Q3gZcn6AQJdXRocYeX6SpN9W4i4/B0XNc0gck2V/EIpa1 VOjyJSPe9D1XaKn0jSdoijJj2FEOXjl3/tg/XmWiRb8kC1cBVrvwlQlg3niKBcIyGxKG u7ZBw1nWNZMXeP+P45sp0pGhwJ/yceAnvcgBPvjqWWzhvPcVB/TEm9z5PnnwSZrE2U7F WHakOHjQu3MOIRzmhwxdU9sdgAX/c9paSjH4wImcsOh+yvDdYTlPg1hjcM8J09l/G4ki f11CxkdDat8ybDfEnzTM44uUyZgpvzMIMipWVRhs6MvA7M+nzmJ/6gdIiJAdQ0EAq6hQ m2mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g2qNDhBO2Icxvqr07q2a8nZGDIejvA7MOs+tJKOFyYM=; b=gMcKd/VaJEOmqxss3CZeqiavhTaXaInJQf7zisNcldcAtmUoGjJRcVgW7EdeU6O7zF o8EliGn47iBqvJTPGQcmvmNZnhC7w046jxqWQRyUwcwpjORKRn7TOPiWVkpsf7JrvN9o TnlP7svRebgz9joVjKHRNOH2OyH8rZVYRpC8W+e3KbiCQddvSMHlyrCfDI4PzW/ieZ08 p+igdOskvSLwNw82snul1PURXh2cmDtZZXo6yiTfXpXZatQv3cJXEqwkX7ebko6D++JY R2rzWBLbd3bEC3ANUgltQaFur2wOX8v0kaHwOVN6jSm9tht+6qjA08cOgAh1ngB/sY0w bUTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV8ZFqZQ4oTOLDux6vfsawUDSdHGJiyARzO9cQL6+4NY1vXwafr S4bQqyys+jG8IjRR7kszuz7p9PdxHCxSgJ4/Wts=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqziLVAdYNW6My9PPNaNAbTIf3xmcZdQjSCeqLrzF/cuX8bXuAjEX3zVtc7JLbE5IgKSP4J5W1LMt2PKawdVSlE=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:1696:: with SMTP id 22mr37544658ilw.243.1574774906405; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:28:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157477128880.13735.1639586563134012090@ietfa.amsl.com> <MN2PR11MB3565B3E1C6C4819300132E0BD8450@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565B3E1C6C4819300132E0BD8450@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:27:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUcGvY2ZZgZMJc=xzjsoCw1+Ay9d5UANEK5=3ajTroDsCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "Iot-dir@ietf.org" <Iot-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e5c92d05983fdab8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/zeqahGW0ithL7eZHAnjYNV5SvJU>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-04
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 13:28:29 -0000

Thank you very much Pascal for the fast response and explanations.

Best,

Ines.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 3:12 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> Many thanks Ines!
>
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1- In Section 1 that list the components of the reassembly buffer in
> node B,
> > should it contains the datagram_offset as well?
>
> Well each fragment has a offset and a length but there's only one datagram
> size. Fragments are normally received in order but that's only a MUST for
> the first fragment. So say fragments are received in any order. You'd need
> to remember all the offsets. Whether the fragments are kept as received
> with their meta including the offset or just pasted at the right place is
> implementation dependent.
>
> >
> > 2-  In Section 1, where states: "...the actual packet data from the
> fragments
> > received so far, in a form that makes it possible to detect...", I think
> it might be
> > nice to add an example referring in which form, I mean: "...in a form
> (e.g. ....)
> > that makes it possible....", what do you think?
>
>
> If an implementation wishes to check that it gets is all and that's
> there's no overlap it can remember all the offsets and sizes. Or make a
> linked list of the fragments as received. Or paste in a space that is big
> enough and in a way that allows to scan for gaps. But we do not mandate
> exactly if and how that's done. If we indicate one we seem to favor it and
> I'm concerned that people would come up with a better idea and complain.
> This is an internal of the implementation after all.
>
> > 3- draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-17, section 3.7 states some security
> > vulnerabilities for IP fragmentation (The mentioned document as well
> defines
> > virtual reassembly). Do you think that some of these vulnerabilities can
> be
> > applied to 6LOWPAN fragments? For example, attacks based on predictable
> > 6LOWPAN fragment identification values.
>
> You're certainly right, Ines. Let me visit that and come back with an
> update.
>
> All the best;
>
> Pascal
>