IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 09 January 2024 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8CBC14CEE3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 06:16:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8r-LeGylkre for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 06:16:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC36C14F701 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 06:16:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AD71800D; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:16:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id CzZvJA44ro0f; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:16:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E7C1800C; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:16:17 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1704809777; bh=4tkWEtdnuOKCd/PcJxeu5oWo8F8NXBo90lMk54JCtAA=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ES8vaMf7rMq8DxkZw2wrZqglPCv9lQ5CTGAxxnK3SxwzMOv1zCzPvGDlJztbfjAH2 fuEz3RwIq//Z4j2nRIIuDeF2u76yocylR38Y6SldBYBHv/6IGPdA7Zr4jv5NrIlB1v vniU4aYHId7WqeSGOAZxfhRpagAlsR7cgpdUFG/erZoH+pzX+hDonIo2XH1SaPZVM+ GDsK3A0XsuRI8AUAGlz1cOh0YF292A/9ngubfdnaRTxyl8Aw4z1wgso1Vjcsz857KT g3gySqDFKlwBndoQJ4+l78rfpwumMv6UP7iJGQ/e7xeT9u7Ty5rZV2d21LUl7u2jWl XRdo+75rcQKRw==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D46D14F; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:16:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BATBfT4P3tMBbeCcwouYuvhbq_Vd6GQ00eTFHnxE_-bxCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJgLMKuUkm1bxhT379QxrdOLzbA0zuGPQY4UbvzOYJD-ykWBwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQzwW4yFXH6vF2stZT5G7OmyZj248zGxeZbJ06JDJ_ieg@mail.gmail.com> <7598.1701799723@localhost> <CAFU7BAQ1Ge3yKjdSXEX80ukbw-OYMReC8+Tvh6UNAB2UKEOz5w@mail.gmail.com> <9253.1703255775@localhost> <CAFU7BAQ6fJjhjtvmwJd8otwPG3A0=4x87oFnMRPyyn9uWoCB6Q@mail.gmail.com> <21509.1703869064@localhost> <CAFU7BATBfT4P3tMBbeCcwouYuvhbq_Vd6GQ00eTFHnxE_-bxCA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 09:16:17 -0500
Message-ID: <31400.1704809777@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/4X_dxvjzslEqApFKpl4R5erdTms>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 14:16:26 -0000

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> I'm not claiming a new security issue, I'm claiming that finding these kinds
    >> of things is exactly the problem we are trying to diagnose.

    > I do not think the primary use case here is "finding rogue DHCP
    > servers", to be honest.

No, its finding broken things on the network :-)

    >> But, I see your point, one could just observe the latest announcement.
    >>
    >> Well, I don't know then, the simpler solution is appealing.

    > By the simplest you mean "once the client starts sending, it doesn't stop"?
    > Are you (and the group) OK with 'cons' (such as 'if the administrator
    > wants to turn it off, it might need to
    > bounce the client's connection.')?

I'm rather okay with this.

    >> Is this the ADDR-REG-INFORM message, or another information request?

    > I'm not sure I understand the question. The client sent a packet (e.g.
    > Information request) which includes OPTION REQUEST OPTION containing
    > OPTION_ADDR_REG_ENABLE code and got a response w/o
    > OPTION_ADDR_REG_ENABLE option back.
    > What's now?
    > Stop? Continue sending?

If it was the first such message, then it didn't start.
If it was running before, I think that continuing is preferrable to
oscilating.  I think that oscillating will be worse for diagnostics.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email