[Dots] 答复: another option://答复: Can DOTS protocol support IP whitelist for DOTS client's AA?

"Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> Mon, 07 August 2017 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <frank.xialiang@huawei.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 4D3B713218F for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 02:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 uti5_DFCatG2 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 02:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9020A124217 for <Dots@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 02:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DSW62966; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 09:58:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.33) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:58:18 +0100
Received: from DGGEML502-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.84]) by DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::74d9:c659:fbec:21fa%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:58:13 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
To: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>, "Dots@ietf.org" <Dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: another option://答复: Can DOTS protocol support IP whitelist for DOTS client's AA?
Thread-Index: AdMPF2QONmutCNOvSwe0CfD0yMkBTgAACUnwAA6poPAABEOgkA==
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 09:58:13 +0000
Message-ID: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12BB2D39C@DGGEML502-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12BB2D185@DGGEML502-MBX.china.huawei.com> <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12BB2D19B@DGGEML502-MBX.china.huawei.com> <DM5PR16MB17880F012FB44009155ADCA1EAB50@DM5PR16MB1788.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR16MB17880F012FB44009155ADCA1EAB50@DM5PR16MB1788.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.159.76]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12BB2D39CDGGEML502MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.598839BB.00F1, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.2.84, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 810056c1be8310b8a9a28b546a53e077
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/bM_1jrPZEzGI7IdYJHRLy3plXUc>
Subject: [Dots] 答复: another option://答复: Can DOTS protocol support IP whitelist for DOTS client's AA?
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 09:58:25 -0000

Hi Tiru,
Thanks for your analysis. It makes sense to me~~

To be accurate, IP whitelist does not relax the mutual authentication requirement, but indeed lose the encryption benefits.

B.R.
Frank

发件人: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy [mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com]
发送时间: 2017年8月7日 17:51
收件人: Xialiang (Frank); Dots@ietf.org
主题: RE: another option://答复: Can DOTS protocol support IP whitelist for DOTS client's AA?

TLS supports pre-shared key based authentication. The other mechanisms are Subject Public Key Info (SPKI) Fingerprint pin set for mutual authentication (self-signed certificates or raw public keys) without having to deal with CA.

I don’t think DOTS should relax the mutual authentication and encryption requirements.

-TIru

From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xialiang (Frank)
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 6:25 AM
To: Dots@ietf.org<mailto:Dots@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dots] another option://答复: Can DOTS protocol support IP whitelist for DOTS client's AA?

In addition to IP whitelist and certificate, pre-share key can also be an option.
Right?

发件人: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Xialiang (Frank)
发送时间: 2017年8月7日 8:52
收件人: Dots@ietf.org<mailto:Dots@ietf.org>
主题: [Dots] Can DOTS protocol support IP whitelist for DOTS client's AA?

Hi,
I think the direct use of IP whitelist on the DOTS server to authenticate and authorize the DOTS client is a simple and effect method, at least in some special use cases, like: DOTS client does not support certificate, an ISP which detects the spoofed source address, etc.

So, should we support this as an optional way for the DOTS client’s AA and add it into the DOTS protocol drafts?

B.R.
Frank