Re: [Detnet] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Tue, 08 September 2020 18:26 UTC
Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565E53A0C37; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=gmail.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 BT8_gIwrPora; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (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 5BB8B3A0C34; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id c18so211840wrm.9; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 11:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=+Sb20fE/074t97beJFYcsA0WU+BG0+TNmAmGdP5hPYA=; b=KvG4ojI9YNcHoIm0XBYZyVaKDSneKY2BLFnKhyc/95xRhGxDmFkhH6JwhO35yl1wDi WLkPXLnD3xwDMA/oR0bxysASYfBNiQeeV4Kvp+nl7lddVkcIX0x8myFa69SKIW2vtLWw wkq2EyJMAp609brUS1xsRTCkSj5qRNaOGcURPBlg8UBtl5ZOPrImmTmnGCkDVFPtAA3N xBHdrzppL3auPArE6SLhlWncuhZMT+xNjNfI2nrhXufwF5OLo8hRFwpECSvNoIknaWvB 0wmbCWKTRxWHE213Hpm/Fk3+n5ZSEXU7chDQ2/a9tmRLq0y+X+POpTzXPkgWfYUW2cJY jJ6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=+Sb20fE/074t97beJFYcsA0WU+BG0+TNmAmGdP5hPYA=; b=t3ysw31JQWxKMi8S9ObUqG/k5wZFaqPaDcZQx/gho6Joc2Y8RkI9DfCZG8whxGtx9k l4ZlscrLtPVOlBR1qPbZUGKUC2sWrfi6iRlXWF5+GT8iLXoCoHtqiBZPjpCxV3Hz6YWI DDaInFubRtt73v7BRgS0kukyEmSbS13LOM76amIQfFSyKSqnN6fC9xuM720LT0I/3fGv sKP07Fb0tqlteRUx/u3i5FYCkgXCApaBgAu8lZnG9Ze9f3fZXwTO9euR5CItQgKF1j1S IwjuASXniftZWNzyRHivJjWTDL8zuM2nfHv4uBqnVprxcESmIKu0z7bF7D1cPdTkGA+F OMpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BZya8Yze+nsQmlv6EUDQwjS+hAX33/gDgD0XIZd5HCyphoEok TBUlKuJmonarMgtP4r6aqZQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzd62IcQJ5k7szoaJ6ag3O3mqHpK6KFUvTDW+KAuh91C0EuF3732VIcTueMg0WkahcvZGkULQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4d01:: with SMTP id z1mr920671wrt.366.1599589608660; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.46] ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a74sm326115wme.11.2020.09.08.11.26.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Sep 2020 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <FC34617C-56FD-4E14-B1B4-7FCD81945CA7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AA50FE1D-BEEC-49F3-97CA-5ADB9EAE3714"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 19:26:17 +0100
In-Reply-To: <159958865571.6798.11039232880316596486@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls@ietf.org, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, Ethan Grossman <eagros@dolby.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
References: <159958865571.6798.11039232880316596486@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/AN597cl1EBfTDeejJnr5LeVI6SY>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 18:26:52 -0000
> On 8 Sep 2020, at 19:10, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > ** (Discuss-discuss) Section 6. Per “To prevent DetNet packets from being > delayed by an entity external to a DetNet domain, DetNet technology definition > can allow for the mitigation of MiTM attacks, for example through the use of > authentication and authorization of devices within the DetNet domain”, can this > attack scenario or the appropriate mitigation be clarified. If packets are > coming from or going across the DetNet boundary how can any assurances be made? > What is architecture element is the “MiTM” (relay? transit? per Figure 2)? Remember no packet gets into an MPLS LSP unless specifically put there by a PE (this is fundamental MPLS). So the requirement on the PE is that it only allows permitted packets to enter the LSP but this is always a requirement placed on a PE. - Stewart
- [Detnet] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-de… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [Detnet] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-iet… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-iet… Roman Danyliw
- Re: [Detnet] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-iet… Balázs Varga A