IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] SLAAC security concerns

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 04 August 2020 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 843F13A10B5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 13:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 e4olXElcd9uX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf35.google.com (mail-qv1-xf35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46F7E3A107D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf35.google.com with SMTP id cs12so1499259qvb.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=pw0aVGrSEPMxRSgN2GlyCGvn3R4gZy1P0tJuYJLllSk=; b=g0wZUAA6GknHt5dpiLSQSEfvYJvubTlP6e422iyf07QmaM56s3DEa2IhMMWHi35o8w BryeC90ItbnpciP7NuBWAAYrJfcxI1sfajz027+DsjZU/1PDstahBr9QtBTPwn8qfHSs eWM2zbYZZuai6MdPHBfXp3ru3I/IgwM8Srh/J+98ZrhlzoaWF5zpOrnIqM7h+N4dRL4G DSBYzdV2NUmgEYFVYY98dxLcgQFO5B5qAZLVIDW/zm+CdLEz90iDZycoPFTtTW25L/N8 NuEhebKp2NnGeguXQCTIGh/T1csT5KHANVox/HVBImX/+B2qyl7sOtJOfclUYtu0yW7g EDxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=pw0aVGrSEPMxRSgN2GlyCGvn3R4gZy1P0tJuYJLllSk=; b=OpyYNF+ybg3K0GYw0TXJqD+KiTbwmUKzotJo8+OA6Z3pIKsy0fnEHKjtLzdOX7N5fm qVO1Wlbyce3DcaPOUKMyjXDqjrUBd+B61GzFJftNThd5DdMzeIwJnPHk/G3pbveeh0BW Ajz0HhO9XQeAQv8+GUm8IM6WiDDXfsGRCut/cITFS1FYw9AsUXPhdIfkmjJizFejMWEL LnhSle579lXx+5fw1qc/Fjg3oSDSMWwdi3d7Si8QlEoZYRFtObBI1VP5VoceftEE2COD 14uaGc/bKuxrBbw5MRuGxr+12o4pr/Ek45Rm5nfKna65ryZZu3zwJ86Esup4/JP5CeG9 tbYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315S2Mp20iw7sx86uNeEOiUMdoGrDB3xI96IiRPicxpzvxR3u3J G9pHHIiewOqFxoa9ZZWad/XNrg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwKQdJfERF166WTm7yNK62r+wzFp57paePH2VRqkoQXWgjWoaaqpcjx5xdw1qi6nM3ZsP0vHw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:cc87:: with SMTP id f7mr99772qvl.188.1596572124243; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:bc4f:dd7f:d316:5243? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:bc4f:dd7f:d316:5243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t69sm1923470qka.73.2020.08.04.13.15.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <6370DE53-9EC6-4141-97C6-3B223939012A@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_64667390-537C-4BD9-BAFF-6D83F901C773"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC security concerns
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:15:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20200804194448.GA2485@Space.Net>
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
References: <f52c4463862f44b5ba2a9d41db86d231@huawei.com> <20200804194448.GA2485@Space.Net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IdPna53-40jAI3nOW3rLk9eduZc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 20:15:27 -0000

On Aug 4, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> There is too many broken switch vendors out there that show again and
> again that "implementing multicast is hard", breaking IPv6 ND in the 
> process.

Why don’t you return that switch for a refund?

(I’ve never run into a switch that had trouble with IPv6 multicast, but admittedly I only have four different switches in my house, so that’s not a very big sample.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email