Re: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 02 April 2019 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98CC4120086 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 22:15:00 -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=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zSxJrLtHCGVC for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 22:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A6A12001E for <dots@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 22:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by opfedar25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44YHTB6kTMz8tKV; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:14:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.57]) by opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44YHTB5YXszCqkt; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:14:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM6D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::4c24:f1ba:2b1:e490%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:14:54 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>, "Jon Shallow" <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>, kaname nishizuka <kaname@nttv6.jp>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon
Thread-Index: AdTliGx+SHuMyqAwQXGIbxMDIEwnuAAFAkKAALfbG4AABL07wAAAeoKgAAOXWlAAHPOt0A==
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:14:54 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA50DA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <108a01d4e588$72f886b0$58e99410$@jpshallow.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA4F27E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA50720@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BYAPR16MB279064CD877BD1FEF041DE88EA550@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA5092C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BYAPR16MB2790507E1356AA360777DAEDEA550@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR16MB2790507E1356AA360777DAEDEA550@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/X9fGwC578N2UZ4uyELUIFkDw9e4>
Subject: Re: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 05:15:01 -0000

Hi Tiru, 

I entered a new issue for the ACL stats: https://github.com/boucadair/filter-control/issues/1 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Konda, Tirumaleswar
> Reddy
> Envoyé : lundi 1 avril 2019 17:27
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Jon Shallow; kaname nishizuka; dots@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 7:32 PM
> > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>;
> > Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>; kaname nishizuka
> > <kaname@nttv6.jp>; dots@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon
> >
> > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links
> or
> > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> > safe.
> >
> > Hi Tiru,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > [mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com]
> > > Envoyé : lundi 1 avril 2019 15:31
> > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Jon Shallow; kaname nishizuka;
> > > dots@ietf.org Objet : RE: [Dots] clarification questions from the
> > > hackathon
> > >
> > > Update looks good, couple of points to consider:
> > >
> > > 1> when the mitigation request is successfully applied, the response
> > > 1> must
> > > include the acl-* attributes conveyed in the request (as per RFC7252
> > > 5.9.1.1).
> >
> > [Med] I hesitated to add this one. What is the purpose of returning the
> acl-*
> > in the response given that 2.01/2.04 are explicit that the type was
> > successfully updated. Receiving a response such as the one in Figure 10 of
> > the signal channel is straightforward.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> >
> > > 2> It looks useful to return the activated ACL statistics, for example
> > > 2> If the
> > > client activates a rate-limit ACL, the ACL could be applied at the PE
> > > router (because the DMS is not capable of handling the attack volume).
> > > The rate- limit ACL will rate-limit both legitimate and attack
> > > traffic, and the DMS will scrub the rate-limited traffic and drop the
> > > attack traffic. The client may want to know the statistics of the
> > > traffic dropped because of the rate- limit ACL.
> >
> > [Med] This one needs more discussion, IMO. I suggest to leave this one open
> > for future revisions.
> 
> Sure, please add to github issues for tracking purpose.
> 
> -Tiru
> 
> >
> > >
> > > -Tiru
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
> > > > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 4:43 PM
> > > > To: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>; kaname nishizuka
> > > > <kaname@nttv6.jp>; dots@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon
> > > >
> > > > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
> > > > links
> > > or
> > > > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> > > > content is safe.
> > > >
> > > > Jon, Kaname, all,
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, a proposal to integrate the interop comments is available at:
> > > > https://github.com/boucadair/filter-control/blob/master/wdiff%20draf
> > > > t-
> > > > nishizuka-dots-signal-control-filtering-05.txt%20draft-nishizuka-dot
> > > > s-
> > > signal-
> > > > control-filtering-06.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Med
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > > > > > De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> > > > > > > > kaname nishizuka Envoyé : jeudi 28 mars 2019 11:38 À :
> > > > > > > > dots@ietf.org Objet : [Dots] clarification questions from
> > > > > > > > the hackathon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of these topics in the ML.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #1: Questions about signal-control-filtering
> > > > > > > >   1. Should a mitigation request create a mitigation before
> > > > > > > > doing a PUT
> > > > > +
> > > > > > > > acl-list [{acl-name, activation-type}] against the active
> > > > > > > > mitigation,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > ‘PUT + acl-list [{acl-name, activation-type}]’ allowed to
> > > > > > > > create a new mitigation?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Med] Both are currently allowed in the draft. I don't still a
> > > > > > > valid
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > restrict this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Jon] As per draft
> > > > > >    A DOTS client MUST NOT use the filtering control over DOTS
> signal
> > > > > >    channel if no attack (mitigation) is active;
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] What is meant actually is:
> > > > >
> > > > >    A DOTS client MUST NOT use the filtering control over DOTS signal
> > > > >    channel in 'idle' time;
> > > > >
> > > > > Will update the text.
> > > > >
> > > > > > [Jon] then needs to be reworded as there is no active mitigation
> > > > > > until the PUT is done...
> > > > > > I believe that both cases should be supported.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   2. Should the response to a GET (or Observed GET) include
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > acl-
> > > > > list
> > > > > > > > [{acl-name, activation-type}] if the PUT included it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Med] The current spec says "no". That's said, what would be
> > > > > > > the value in returning it? Then, why not allowing to return
> > > > > > > the references to all ACLs
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > are enabled during the mitigation time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > [Jon] When observing the mitigation request, if the
> > > > > > activation-type is changed externally, the client will then know
> about
> > the change.
> > > > > > Assuming
> > > > > the
> > > > > > response got back to the client, this is effectively an ACK to
> > > > > > the fact
> > > > > that
> > > > > > the ACL change got through.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] The observe case makes sense, indeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting concept about knowing about all the relevant ACLs as
> > > > > > returned over the signal channel.  More work for the server to
> > > > > > do in determining
> > > > > which
> > > > > > ACLs are valid for, say, a specific IP address that is being
> mitigated.
> > > > > Not
> > > > > > entirely convinced of the benefit of this as this generally is
> > > > > > available
> > > > > over
> > > > > > the data channel.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] I'm not convinced, either.
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > Dots@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots