rfc2460bis and Frag ID generation

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310701ACDB1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:04:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 AgsC0ANylz3D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB55D1ACDAA for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.107] (unknown [181.165.125.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A7FD206AC2; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 20:04:09 +0100 (CET)
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: rfc2460bis and Frag ID generation
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56B39FB8.4090604@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:00:08 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9Cz5ew7RaQelFYDLNaGV8gtrSDU>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 19:04:14 -0000

Bob/folks,

The current text regarding frag ID generation in rfc2460bis says:

---- cut here ----
      *  "recently" means within the maximum likely lifetime of a
         packet, including transit time from source to destination and
         time spent awaiting reassembly with other fragments of the same
         packet.  However, it is not required that a source node know
         the maximum packet lifetime.  Rather, it is assumed that the
         requirement can be met by maintaining the Identification value
         as a simple, 32-bit, "wrap-around" counter, incremented each
         time a packet must be fragmented.  It is an implementation
         choice whether to maintain a single counter for the node or
         multiple counters, e.g., one for each of the node's possible
         source addresses, or one for each active (source address,
         destination address) combination.
---- cut here ----


I suggest changing the text to:

---- cut here ----
      *  "recently" means within the maximum likely lifetime of a
         packet, including transit time from source to destination and
         time spent awaiting reassembly with other fragments of the same
         packet.  However, it is not required that a source node know
         the maximum packet lifetime.  Rather, it is assumed that the
         requirement can be met by implementing an algorithm that
         results in a low identification reuse frequency. [RFC7739]
         discusses possible algorithms that can meet this requirement
         while avoiding possible security and privacy issues.
---- cut here ----

(where the ref to RFC7739 is obviously informative, rather than normative).

 -- Bottom-line is that rfc2460bis shouldn't suggest algorithms that
have known issues, and it's better to have an informative reference to
RFC7739, where possible algorithms are discussed.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492