Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

For the record of part of this discussion regarding size of flowspec v6
flow label field I am perfectly ok to have it fixed size of 20 bit field.

As a matter of fact if we assume that flow label allocation nature is to be
dynamic by IETF recommendation I am also perfectly fine to remove flow
label match from flow spec v6 all together.

Kind regards,
Robert.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 5:36 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Christoph,
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:41:13PM +0100, Christoph Loibl wrote:
> > Hi Benjamin,
> >
> > Thanks for your review of the document. I have edited the document and I
> think cleared your discuss with the changes (please see my comments
> inline).
>
> Also inline, though I will not specifically comment on the (many) bits that
> look good as-is.
>
> > Since I have a few more changes to apply the new version is not yet
> online (however I attached the modified version to this message). Since the
> draft submission is closed now I will ask Alvaro to publish the changed
> document today.
> >
> > Cheers  Christoph
> >
> >
> > > ## DISCUSS:
> > > A fairly minor point, but I think that allowing Type 13 (flow label)
> > > component values to be encoded as 2-byte quantities encourages the
> > > selection of non-random flow label values, and thus violates the
> > > guidance from RFC 6437 that these values "should be chosen such that
> > > their bits exhibit a high degree of variability" and that "third
> parties
> > > should be unlikely to be able to guess the next value that a source of
> > > flow labels will choose." While having the short 1-byte encoding for a
> > > flow label of 0 might be reasonable, a 2-byte label can represent at
> > > most 16 bits of the 20-bit identifier space, discouraging the use of
> the
> > > high 4 bits, when such bits of unpredictability are scarce already.
> > > Let's discuss how big an issue this is and what might be done to
> > > mitigate it.
> >
> > The Type-13 component is not the flow label itself. It is only the
> filter that allows to match on that particular field in the IPv6 header of
> the packets. If the flow-label encoded in the packet (unlikely, but
> possible) can be encoded in 8,16-bits one could encode the match filter in
> a shorter form. However, this may be very unlikely. This specification does
> not choose those flow labels, but allows to match on flow labels in packets
> (usually generated by other systems).
>
> I understand that this specification is describing patterns to match flow
> labels and not the flow labels themselves, yes.  However, this document is
> saying that, *if* the flow labels themselves have a certain structure, then
> the flow specification (from this document) to match the flow labels has a
> more compact encoding.  This, in turn, sets up an incentive for the party
> assigning flow labels to conform to the specific structure of flow label
> values, in order to take advantage of the more compact encoding.  I believe
> that using any kind of substructure when assigning flow label values is
> contrary to the guidance of RFC 6437 (and, relately, harms the overall
> security of the internet), and thus am supplying resistance to a mechanism
> that incentivizes using such internal structure in flow label values.
> The discussion that I would like to have here relates to the magnitude of
> incentive in question (to use specific substructure when generating flow
> label values), which in turn is related to how much benefit there is from
> shaving two bytes off the flow specification encoding.  I do not believe
> that your comment above is trying to make such an assessment on the
> magnitude of the incentive in question or the value of having the slightly
> more compact encoding available.
>
> > > Please also confirm that we are providing all the information required
> of
> > > us by RFC 5701 and 5575bis (see comments on Section 6.1); I am not sure
> > > whether I am reading the references correctly in these regards.
> >
> > We added the definition of the Local Administrator Field in the Extended
> community to be aligned with the IPv4 rt community:
> >
> > ADDED:
> >        The Local Administrator sub-field contains a number from a
> numbering
> >           space that is administered by the organization to which the IP
> >           address carried in the Global Administrator sub-field has been
> >           assigned by an appropriate authority.
> >
> > >
> > > There seems to be an error in the sample code (flow_rule_cmp_v6()): the
> > > snippet
> > > if comp_a.offset < comp_b.offset:
> > > return A_HAS_PRECEDENCE
> > > if comp_a.offset < comp_b.offset:
> > > return B_HAS_PRECEDENCE
> > > duplicates the condition, whereas the condition should be swapped for
> > > correct operation.
> >
> > This in fact is a problem in the code that has been corrected, and a
> test has been added.
>
> I am happy to hear that a test has been added in addition to fixing the
> bug.
>
> > > ## COMMENT:
> > > Thanks for this straightforward and easy-to-read document! Just a few
> > > minor comments.
> > >
> > > Section 3.3
> > >
> > > This component uses the Numeric Operator (numeric_op) described in
> > > [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] Section 4.2.1.1. Type 3 component values
> > > SHOULD be encoded as single octet (numeric_op len=00).
> > >
> > > Why only SHOULD? (Likewise for Section 3.4, 3.5, etc.)
> > >
> >
> > This is because we want these types to be aligned with the IPv4 types as
> much as possible in order to allow for reusable code.
>
> Ah, of course.  I should have checked that before commenting; sorry.
>
> > > Section 3.7
> > >
> > > Contains a list of {numeric_op, value} pairs that are used to match
> > > the 20-bit Flow Label IPv6 header field ([RFC8200] Section 3).
> > >
> > > [It seems that RFC 8200 §3 just points to RFC 8200 §6, which itself
> > > mostly points to RFC 6437. I don't know if it is useful to
> > > short-circuit some of those references.]
> >
> > Flow Spec does not care about what and how this Flow Label is actually
> encoded. It matches against this particular 20-bit field in the header. I
> think it is better to keep this reference.
> >
> > > Section 3.8.1
> > >
> > > The following example demonstrates the prefix encoding for: "packets
> > > from :🔢5678:9A00:0/64-104 to 2001:DB8::/32 and upper-layer-
> > >
> > > Where is the "/64-104" notation introduced? I did not see it in RFC
> > > 4291. (It also appears in §3.8.2, though the latter uses "/65-104"
> > > to demonstrate the operation of padding.)
> >
> > Appended this to the Type-1 compontent section:
> >
> >    Note: This Flow Specification component can be represented by the
> >    notation ipv6address/length if offset is 0, or ipv6address/offset-
> >    length.  The ipv6address in this notation is the textual IPv6
> >    representation of the pattern shifted to the right by the number of
> >    offset bits.  See also Section 3.8.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > >
> > > Section 4
> > >
> > > The definition for the order of traffic filtering rules from
> > > [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] Section 5.1 is reused with new
> > > consideration for the IPv6 prefix offset. As long as the offsets are
> > > equal, the comparison is the same, retaining longest-prefix-match
> > > semantics. If the offsets are not equal, the lowest offset has
> > > precedence, as this flow matches the most significant bit.
> > >
> > > I will note just to confirm my understanding that this procedure seems
> > > to give higher precedence to, e.g., 1234::/1-4 than to
> > > :🔢5678:9a00/81-128 even though the latter is inspecting more bits
> > > of the address/prefix. (To be clear, some choice has to be made and I
> > > have no reason to prefer a different one over this one, I am just
> > > exploring the consequences of this choice.)
> >
> > Yes this is the case. In general the lower offset generates a lower
> number of consecutive IPv6 address blocks that would match (offset=0
> matches IP addresses only from a single prefix, offset=1 matches 2 blocks,
> offset=2 4, ...), this can be extended to offset=127 which matches every
> second IPv6 address.
> >
> > > It is again (as per 5575bis) surprising that we allow for a "not-equal"
> > > comparison of differently encoded (e.g., flow label) values that have
> > > the same semantic meaning, but I expect the same response (and no
> > > document change) as when I made the comment the first time.
> >
> > While we add IPv6 functionality into Flow-Spec (rfc5575bis) changing any
> of the fundamental behaviour is out of the scope of this document.
> >
> > > Section 5
> > >
> > > The validation procedure is the same as specified in
> > > [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] Section 6 with the exception that item a)
> > > of the validation procedure should now read as follows:
> > >
> > > Are there also any AFI/SAFI differences from 5575bis to consider in
> > > terms of "routes received over"/etc.?
> > >
> >
> > Flow-Spec V6 uses a different AFI/SAFI but this is already covered in
> the rfc5575bis text when it comes to validation:
> >
> >    The validation process described below validates Flow Specifications
> >    against unicast routes received over the same AFI but the associated
> >    unicast routing information SAFI:
>
> Thank you for the extra explanation; I suspected that there was something
> like this that I was missing.
>
> >
> > > Section 6.1
> > >
> > > This extended community uses the same encoding as the IPv6 address
> > > specific Route Target extended community [RFC5701] Section 2 with the
> > > high-order octet of the Type always set to 0x80 and the Sub-Type
> > > always TBD.
> > >
> > > RFC 5701 suggests that since we are allocating the "TBD" sub-type
> value,
> > > we should also state what the semantics of the "local administrator"
> > > 2-octet field are.
> > >
> >
> > This has been edited into the document. See also the DISCUSS section.
> >
> > > Interferes with: All BGP Flow Specification redirect Traffic
> > > Filtering Actions (with itself and those specified in
> > > [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] Section 7.4).
> > >
> > > I think we are supposed to also state what action to take when
> > > encountering interfering actions.
> >
> > This is already in rfc5575bis Section 7.7, and also applies to this
> document.
> >
> > >
> > > Section 7
> > >
> > > It was a little surprising to me that the inability to match (e.g.) TCP
> > > flags or Port values on non-initial IP fragments was not reiterated in
> > > the security considerations of 5575bis. I don't think it would make
> > > sense to mention that just in this document's security considerations,
> > > though -- if we are to change anything it should be in 5575bis. But I
> > > guess we had that conversation already, at
> > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zvpLPjllvKWFuyraZUVz8lB8Wz0/
> > > and thus no change is expected.
> >
> > While IPv4 and IPv6 fragmentation serves the same pupose the encoding is
> different so we needed to redefine thi section. FS is working stateless on
> the packets and can only match on what is in the packet.
>
> Exactly.  I am proposing that this restriction (working stateless and
> cannot match [application-layer headers] things not in the packet) is
> mentioned again in the security considerations section.  I believe that
> this limitation can be described in a way that is agnostic to IPv4 vs IPv6,
> and thus would be better placed in 5575bis than in this document.
>
> > I cannot access the url from above.
>
> Huh, interesting.  Perhaps if you log in with your datatracker credentials?
> I had specifically tried to find one in the idr archive, since the iesg
> archive is definitely non-public.
> The referred-to message is "Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)" from  Fri, 24
> April 2020 02:12 UTC, Message-ID: <[e-mail]>.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Ben
>
> > >
> > > Section 8.1.2
> > >
> > > (side note) it seems a little weird to have the IPv4 version be the one
> > > that gets the unqualified (e.g., "Destination Prefix") name.
> >
> > This is because we are not changing names of rfc5575bis to avoid
> confusion.
> >
> >
>
>