IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Status of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 30 May 2016 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF62E12B05D for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2016 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 NKZCwBOAqMwC for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2016 10:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 3DBCE12D0C2 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2016 10:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3rJNXg5zyRz40p; Mon, 30 May 2016 19:14:59 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7zuheH3oorv; Mon, 30 May 2016 19:14:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 30 May 2016 19:14:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D70F1801EF0; Mon, 30 May 2016 13:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca D70F1801EF0
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC58D41EEB57; Mon, 30 May 2016 13:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 13:14:57 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <860C938B60E24C76A1749A1563D53A55@buildpc>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605301312210.8086@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <860C938B60E24C76A1749A1563D53A55@buildpc>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/zniFy4NBjuUK23WlbE4_8EuZUVY>
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Status of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 30 May 2016 17:15:06 -0000

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Valery Smyslov wrote:

> On the other hand, if we go this way and give the puzzles stuff an 
> Experimantal status, then probably very few vendors (if any) will implement 
> it and the real problem of defending against
> (D)DoS attacks will remain unaddressed.

I don't think the puzzles implementation adoption will be much different from
whether it is part of the ddos document or a stand-alone document.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email