Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 21 July 2010 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D093A6946 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eulAeYr+EtHF for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3073A6936 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so2795181ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.31.147 with SMTP id y19mr6588861ebc.57.1279735343933; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.168] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm53782237eeh.3.2010.07.21.11.02.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <201007211905.44644.hrogge@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:02:22 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A6053E85-A00D-4109-94F6-D30ECE7CBDAF@inf-net.nl>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <AANLkTil6lRJPunxB1oAbnTL0d6gpIXHUTuyTBPi5NTbX@mail.gmail.com> <F2B8E3E9-084B-45F0-860C-C88A0859BC95@inf-net.nl> <201007211905.44644.hrogge@googlemail.com>
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:02:09 -0000

Op 21 jul 2010, om 19:05 heeft Henning Rogge het volgende geschreven:

> Am Mittwoch 21 Juli 2010, 18:57:36 schrieb Teco Boot:
>> Emmanuel,
>> 
>> Let's solve the duplicate unique MAC address problem. You bring the cards,
>> I'll take the hammer. Then, we (IETF) can stop solving others problems.
> I think the problem would be network hardware without the concept of a layer 2 
> address. Just pure broadcast.

Sure, this type of radios exist. But there is no dup unique MAC address problem.
Often, the device has another interface with an unique MAC address. 
But yes, there would be stuff without such. I suggest to leave those out of scope for now. I never saw a business case for supporting these dumb objects right now.


>> Posted before, I dealt with a DAD DOS attack. It is proven that it is
>> broken. I don't want to accept this risk.
>> Ideas?
> Attacking parts of the IP stack of a node sounds interesting... is there a 
> paper about this ?

I didn't say it was IP.
See Section 4.1.3 of RFC 3756 and SeND (RFC3971).
Also mentioned in SLAAC (RFC4862).


Teco