Re: [IPsec] IPsec Digest, Vol 123, Issue 21

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Tue, 19 August 2014 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C841A0650 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 09:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham
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 FgMpIMVXynHv for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 09:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.kivinen.iki.fi [IPv6:2001:1bc8:100d::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8C1D1A067E for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 09:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s7JGiciU004491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:44:38 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s7JGibGR028254; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:44:37 +0300 (EEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <21491.32501.475060.892333@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:44:37 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1408191041490.19423@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <mailman.4236.1406823571.13632.ipsec@ietf.org> <A0463391-0BB4-408F-874B-A6B91ED6D102@gmail.com> <21490.4420.127387.489490@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1408181229340.25715@bofh.nohats.ca> <21491.9709.148603.972986@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1408191041490.19423@bofh.nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 2 min
X-Total-Time: 2 min
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/zl0soFTwdftGh3MoD7GmIYHYvDQ
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, Les Leposo <leposo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] IPsec Digest, Vol 123, Issue 21
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:44:45 -0000

Paul Wouters writes:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> 
> >> You would need the port number too to support multple clients behind the
> >> same NAT router, upon which the attacker can then use multiple ports too.
> >
> > No need for port number. If server is under attack just block / slow
> > down everybody using the same IP-address (or IP-address mask).
> 
> Works great with CGN :P

Yes, blocks the nicely. Just what they asked for... :-)

On the other hand CGD should notice if there is widespread DoS attack
done through it, and hopefully someone will block those attacks in
there... Those attacks will consume quite a lot of resources on the
CGD so operators would actually like to block them.
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi