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

Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@googlemail.com>
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 C7B2E3A68C8 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.116
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.483, 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 Sq9LQvEl8LYP for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D5C3A6784 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so2022325eyb.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=JFGNwHLizHek0DvbnpU0+ft0qhQmyMwmUBhKy2UqN6c=; b=HquOryJa4SsPo0EeqfuDSci3ZtmW70MZ4Ld9GB7RBIOVwy6DseCGMt+gxBUldQZclt 6WUavcXmdD1aeULUWXeeqZFF1kR2Vc60picf2kLaTQ9klMYAjz4T0VPZkGeaZcffLhAb I/CrCp8++gwDT4JeMHsYAYvH6Af/9Jg0GkRRQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=omCPOjX1iuqGJUZidwaV/Xy34kHiGECjuffhA5RNt4De6W8rie3lkJuVAoBvO2a+uU jyivnJ+im+IiuNgq4KYK/Zj5deuTlqzCxgCQoLkZLckbs69cYtM/qx1Ddgl/lY8fevGw eRCeGgVmF2HFKU4sH9pyfHnPJYe47eGPxP9Zs=
Received: by 10.213.27.206 with SMTP id j14mr6724482ebc.3.1279731946577; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core2.localnet (static-87-79-93-195.netcologne.de [87.79.93.195]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm53639274eeh.20.2010.07.21.10.05.45 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com>
To: autoconf@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:05:39 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.34-gentoo-r2; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <AANLkTil6lRJPunxB1oAbnTL0d6gpIXHUTuyTBPi5NTbX@mail.gmail.com> <F2B8E3E9-084B-45F0-860C-C88A0859BC95@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <F2B8E3E9-084B-45F0-860C-C88A0859BC95@inf-net.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart22454393.3Fs1326D0r"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201007211905.44644.hrogge@googlemail.com>
Cc: 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 17:05:32 -0000

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.

Duplicate MACs can be a pain in the ass, but most times they are defective 
hardware (or misconfigured eprom/flash).

> DHCP fully relies on a client provided token, which must be unique.
> An overwhelming majority of clients use MAC addresses.
> I don't say there are no problems, but many of us accept the risk.
If we have an unique number for each device, autoconfiguration gets nearly 
trivial.
 
> 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 ?

Henning Rogge

-- 
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't leave the game.
— The Laws of Thermodynamics, summarized