Predictable IP protocol values

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 27 April 2012 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D595421F86A0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b7y1oxLs7rYf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3098A21F869D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so301943wgb.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=jB0WlJAKtq8ag2Y4sk1CvgYT3GH+ab6a8WbMTRaY1Xg=; b=GJ2qBxPMd/qSWgffRFX/bhSfXvoLvng+n43vdT1KES9TtGbc4kF9B2sFKw2Sta8C0k UmDUBHUb3fENagfZ7ZiuTuLwO1eOttSFgRL5oPTajaobxQm3Fr/NcMVT8yI5R+OsOfB5 QB7MdBPs1yMyaIRPyOwfK9xEnKSfDs6GT70Vzfxsek6z+RW0nE6PiaAPwEgMokVRr6h+ jOOsQNVPsw1z2rQZkcZNfaYa42a3EzzLwTZ498E/UjRRBYcaEhL4Twvd+zRkZpai4j0k anFi7YDNz13otUYwcSpHdgbmbR9CHvqQ5FKbykk+6GI/YvKIXz/v7qQJLEhDPn1UdFE8 V35A==
Received: by 10.216.134.226 with SMTP id s76mr6266427wei.115.1335514911302; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-10-61-99-132.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e6sm3000966wix.8.2012.04.27.01.21.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Subject: Predictable IP protocol values
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F99B5C8.1010108@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:21:47 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5E6FD71A-0A84-4B20-AF5A-16DCBCD7ED76@employees.org>
References: <401EA98A-C229-4ED3-8CBE-3C6CAE5D37B7@gmail.com> <4F87BBD6.8090809@si6networks.com> <5858DFD5-7A62-478E-8F13-B62CB02D3EE7@employees.org> <4F99B5C8.1010108@si6networks.com>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:21:56 -0000

working group,

[changed subject]

in the context of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id-02
any opinion on how to proceed?

- document covering predictable values in IETF protocols in general
- document predictable IP ID fields in both IPv4 and IPv6
- fix the predictable fragment ID problem in IPv6
- do nothing?

cheers,
Ole


On Apr 26, 2012, at 22:53 , Fernando Gont wrote:

> Hi, Ole,
> 
> On 04/26/2012 08:50 AM, Ole Trøan wrote:
>>> I think that draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id is also ready 
>>> for wg call for adoption as wg document -- I've rev'ed the
>>> document since IETF 83 in response to the feedback received during
>>> my presentation (i.e., just require the Frag ID to be
>>> unpredictable, without mandating any particular algorithm).
>> 
>> the chairs have an action item on taking this to the mailing list. 
>> there was an issue that I believe Bob raised, if we were going to 
>> have publish RFCs on every field in TCP/IP protocols that should
>> have unpredictable values, or if we should have a generic
>> recommendation applying to protocol design in general.
> 
> I believe that a generic document about protocol design that discusses
> this issue would be valuable, such that *new* protocols and protocol
> implementations do not incur into this problem. However, in this
> particular case (Fragment ID), the IPv6 standard itself is suggesting
> to use a counter, and hence the spec should be fixed.
> 
> That aside, different fields have different requirements. For example,
> the constraints for randomizing the transport protocol ports are
> different from those of producing unpredictable IDs, and different from
> those of say, randomizing the TCP sequence numbers, or randomizing the
> IPv6 Flow Label. The consequences of the particular approach that you
> follow vary quite a bit in each case.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
>