Re: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 01 April 2019 14:01 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 AADD7120165 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 07:01:56 -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 U5atH4mCqekn for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 07:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C89C4120074 for <dots@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 07:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.5]) by opfedar26.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44XvCc21RrzFq0r; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 16:01:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.29]) by opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44XvCc12wpzCql8; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 16:01:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d42b:2e80:86c2:5905%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 16:01:47 +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+SHuMyqAwQXGIbxMDIEwnuAAFAkKAALfbG4AABL07wAAAeoKg
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:01:47 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA5092C@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>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR16MB279064CD877BD1FEF041DE88EA550@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/tbXKBWW1KbMlbKX-sU7E3pcIdXQ>
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 14:01:57 -0000

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 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. 

> 2> It looks useful to return the activated ACL statistics, for example 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. 

> 
> -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%20draft-
> > nishizuka-dots-signal-control-filtering-05.txt%20draft-nishizuka-dots-
> 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