Re: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04

<> Fri, 26 April 2019 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA0712016C; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 23:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lEL5thkr1swu; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 23:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 857911200BA; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 23:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.7]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44r3hh2GDVz8v76; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:16:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.64]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44r3hh1Jhqz2xCX; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:16:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::90fe:7dc1:fb15:a02b%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:16:04 +0200
To: Daniel Migault <>
CC: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <>, "" <>, Valery Smyslov <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04
Thread-Index: AQHU+8uBzl0p8A7r/kuIXBaGTxojuqZN6eVQ
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:16:03 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA66260@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <023d01d4ee1f$c2bcb190$483614b0$> <> <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA62879@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA66260OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:16:10 -0000

Hi Daniel,

Please see inline.


De : Daniel Migault []
Envoyé : vendredi 26 avril 2019 03:01
Cc : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy;; Valery Smyslov;;
Objet : Re: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04


Please find my comments inline. I believe my initial comment is addressed.  Igot confused between the DOTS and DTLS Client.


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 9:13 AM <<>> wrote:
Hi Tiru, Daniel,

With regards to:

“ I believe that
the same mechanism could be deployed between a DDoS target, its Cloud
provider major ISPs up to the origin.”

This is not currently doable with DOTS. Some key functional components are needed:
(1) To identify the appropriate ISP which is hosting a DDoS source once a DDoS target has detected/reported an attack to its DOTS server/provider. The target may not be on the same network as the source.
<mglt>I might be wrong, but it seems to me that when the IP address is not spoof, you can relatively easily go back to the ISP of that IP address. (at least). Am I missing something ?</mglt>
[Med] That’s a good starting point (assuming workarounds for some issues such as: registries are not always up to date due to secondary market and so on.)

(2) That ISP needs to expose a service to receive these notifications.
<mglt>Theoretically, you would need an mesh of ISP DOTS communications (for DTLS). but I imagine we could start with ISP you peer with or have servers at the RIR level....</mglt>
[Med] That’s an option. A solution is missing in that space, IMO. Such solution would also be used, for example, by IP reputation systems which currently add IP addresses to blacklists without even informing the ISPs. If that information is made available using some dynamic means, appropriate actions can be enforced by ISPs rather than assigning a “polluted” IP address to customers who will experience a bad quality because of restrictions induced by the reputation of the assigned IP address. We can discuss this offline as this is not specific to DOTS.

Of course, if the ISP is capable of receiving these notifications, it can invoke the procedure in draft-reddy-dots-home-network.