Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores

["Smith, Donald" <[e-mail]>]

Your welcome. I understand not taking a stance on use of priv addresses in the core. I would rather either pull the mention of squat space or recommend against it or explain why it is different then the use of private space. There are elements where that is much worse then the use of rfc1918 space.


(coffee != sleep) & (!coffee == sleep)
 [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
________________________________
From: Anthony Kirkham [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:58 AM
To: Smith, Donald
Cc: 't.petch'; 'Christopher Morrow'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
Subject: Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores

Donald,

Thanks for the review, I plan to do another update in the next few days,
I'm just waiting to see if any further feedback arrives.

A couple of specific comments:

re - squat space. The intent was not to make recommendations on the
practice, just to document the effects.

re - 5. Unexpected interactions with some NAT implementations: What you
say is exactly what I intended to illustrate. I will update the wording
so its clear I'm not talking about a routing loop.

Regards
Tony K

On 9/06/12 7:17 AM, Smith, Donald wrote:
> There is a mention of "squat" space that doesn't make any recommendations as to use or not.
>
> I can understand not expressing an opinion on the rfc1918/private space shouldn't this state that squating is bad?
> "This effect in itself is often not a problem.  However, if anti-
>     spoofing controls are applied at network perimeters, then responses
>     returned from hops with private IP addresses will be dropped."
>
> Any rfc1918 filtering mechinisim will cause this issue not just bcp38 type anti-spoofing.
> Firewalls, junipers and many platforms drop rfc1918 space but not as part of bcp38 .
> BTW BCP84 ala rfc3704 is an update/addition to bcp38 you should probably add them to this reference.
>
>
> And for consistecy I recommend using an expression such as "any rfc1918 or bogon filtering..."
>
> Under section 4 the author says urpf or ingress filtering.
> "If the router's interface address is a
>     private IP address, then this ICMP reply packet may be discarded due
>     to uRPF or ingress filtering, thereby causing the PMTUD mechanism to
>     fail."
>
> Under
> 5. Unexpected interactions with some NAT implementations
> The first section works. As stated it might confuse someone but honestly unless the 4th hop also matches the 2 hop it doesn't look like a routing loop to me. It looks like rfc1918 reuse.
>
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
>     Tracing the route to 198.51.100.100
>
>       1 10.1.1.2 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
>       2 198.51.100.13 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec
>       3 10.1.1.2 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec<<<<
>       4 198.51.100.5 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec
>       5 198.51.100.1 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
>
> Section 6 references rfc2827 should probably include bcp84 and rfc3704.
>
> Your first example of a security gap is really a no worse if you use private or public addresss but you call that out so I am ok with it.
>
> NIT
> This:
> Some applications discover the outside address of
>     their local CPE to determine if that address is reserver for special
>     use.
> Should be this:
> Some applications discover the outside address of
>     their local CPE to determine if that address is reserved for special
>     use.
>
>
> When packets collide the controllers cease transmission AND wait a random time before retransmission (mostly)!
> [e-mail]
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> t.petch
>> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:06 AM
>> To: Christopher Morrow; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores
>>
>> I would like to see this published as an RFC.
>>
>> The only discussion I see whether or not the title of 12.2 should have
>> an initial capital - I think that it should.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Christopher Morrow"<[e-mail]>
>> To:<[e-mail]>;<[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:41 PM
>>> Folks,
>>> There's been work on the draft:
>>>     <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores>
>>>
>>> I think the commenters' comments were addressed by the authors.
>>> Can we move this to WGLC now and clear that 6/19/2012 (June 19,
>> 2012).
>>> Abstract of the draft:
>>>    "The purpose of this document is to provide a discussion of the
>>>     potential problems of using private, RFC1918, or non-globally-
>>>     routable addressing within the core of an SP network.  The
>> discussion
>>>     focuses on link addresses and to a small extent loopback
>> addresses.
>>>     While many of the issues are well recognised within the ISP
>>>     community, there appears to be no document that collectively
>>>     describes the issues."
>>>
>>> Could there be some discussion on WGLC and  we'll see about  moving
>>> this along to the IESG?
>>>
>>> -chris
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GROW mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GROW mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
> This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication
> in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the communication and any attachments.
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>
>


--



________________________________
This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.