IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] Best transport selection during an attack?

"Mortensen, Andrew" <amortensen@arbor.net> Thu, 05 November 2015 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <amortensen@arbor.net>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F97B1B36A3 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:54:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fVmLNRZsCaF9 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (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 C82F61B369E for <dots@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:54:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igpw7 with SMTP id w7so1854438igp.1 for <dots@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:54:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=BJ6H5lU7I/fGX0DDU38PoLG386mWo/P1UXJWPAWlWhc=; b=Y6hICRPE77IdlHmFNrQLddCeX5AwCdVOosatrjYpYTqrkckZ99BfJf1LkUlBk+SSoq STO9V0PuQHb3/5TSVw96PDeiFFDFo+5b6plBThf5JVAMQ2XY2wozQNMsgEJ03oLPMVe4 YhX64ZKorOwZhTTssq8YJHeqnlbofemeEINeE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=BJ6H5lU7I/fGX0DDU38PoLG386mWo/P1UXJWPAWlWhc=; b=LF8i8WfjNTwniNklak9RmLPcA9BZJcUz6IwPTPNdZ9tcPVQbjfnEbaPm7vkNy/jzDq m2axTB4DxkTthzu38GuztII9DW7dd9Sh7XvVQIB4Z5RdiRjiHPiJY8jvBqQQqqRycf0O WOqGgn2rw70qKEApzx94eOt+KTYyx+i8iQIf7YcGtIBxxTawPIKu6vIc/dH6DvbsCkKZ 59/PXt4U1zjpbkVAvOEfLpYN5/dK2uOZcaA1uTpI8rSSDVuOuNuv0cfczVcrPop53haa fnl3/K25U0IApAnQeRRFUqb5vOiJUsmsznd2yDz2jD0cmfGPDO25jiAdS0YA7AVR8ato zCLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmpI+DVLtcQ05BWV7ynEcYacQ8pCH4/7yi8QTSDY/TALFxhdC+0AJBKX+/rchOkigagp3At
X-Received: by 10.50.97.37 with SMTP id dx5mr298286igb.14.1446688460960; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-35-191.meeting.ietf94.jp (dhcp-35-191.meeting.ietf94.jp. [133.93.35.191]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p62sm2099396ioe.1.2015.11.04.17.54.18 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_937CC277-371C-4A76-B1A8-F0DED19FD7A9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: "Mortensen, Andrew" <amortensen@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <5FEA6D26-1C4F-44F7-8D4B-E06FA5390AC0@netapp.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:54:16 -0500
Message-Id: <1C5A9479-A370-4086-A345-3F209DA6ED57@arbor.net>
References: <CAD62q9VFhg4-iMT2X_bBUQ3tU3hbDcb6k-_YrfKcT4Jf6iH6Eg@mail.gmail.com> <5638D31B.4080801@mti-systems.com> <CAD6AjGRQNSjb0x34_Or-tm7rbg_UQWPJjYFfLsV6znNsgPRoMA@mail.gmail.com> <0A836E5A-C801-4CF4-916C-41EA065D3D30@arbor.net> <CAD62q9WGUxf1NdAKw_tjST+RH=rT-3=-bdV=ivGUC_6L_qHzFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20dadcd20c26d51c284fdc4697cdc8a9.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362137C463@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <D260D348.14B76%nteague@verisign.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362137C4FA@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <D260D5E6.14B88%nteague@verisign.com> <DCCACB91-64EC-42DC-B497-A7E70EAFF571@arbor.net> <833E87DD-66E2-4049-BF84-2CAFFBD58912@netapp.com> <5FEA6D26-1C4F-44F7-8D4B-E06FA5390AC0@netapp.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/OmadXJcGL_AKDVoVsqjYymTA0o0>
Cc: Gorry Fairhust <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "Teague, Nik" <nteague@verisign.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Best transport selection during an attack?
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:54:26 -0000

Yes, thank you for bringing this up. Speaking for myself, I believe the DOTS signal (distinct from bulk data exchanges, which must use reliable transports per requirements draft) fits the low-traffic characteristics of section 3.1.2.

andrew



On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com <mailto:lars@netapp.com>> wrote:
On 2015-11-05, at 10:42, Lars Eggert <lars@netapp.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis

draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis (copy/paste error)

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email