RE: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 08 February 2017 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 84F9B1295F0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:37:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 oPq4On8Yw3TD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 0946F129501 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v18LbQIZ016160; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:37:26 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.221]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v18LbFAF015629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:37:15 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdd::8988:efdd) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:37:14 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:37:14 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)
Thread-Topic: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)
Thread-Index: AdJ8F7CvYW0JrWzvRzOTQSlLsXA0KQA/bwYAACZxdWAA79nnKQAAmI2QABLuxgAAEEj3sAAjAHMAABBzxVD//40VgIAAg0ag
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:37:14 +0000
Message-ID: <c6407d1889fb4a72864e690a7be13cee@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <9910b4acd87044e89fad83bb5c795b77@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfJMW5SRDxm04rC67Xvf4YqaxihyCRUXfGW3TUq42Xk-A@mail.gmail.com> <5ebd374f4ec8454b8a3796cffe5e1919@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfN9x031TXBd8Hpiv5168=zXXN+U02gGqsxyXhpQ-SDWA@mail.gmail.com> <E291D7B9-7492-4043-BE4F-E45CB54985D7@google.com> <CAJE_bqePL1bKAZL53=oebn=2eiYKdxyULd5jS4uJk9jo1sFrcA@mail.gmail.com> <614ead862aa54a548ed4835a998a42e4@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x4WZ6ObVBkawXEhtO2SqWfoQrOCvNCNXVrkpNKrzj=LQ@mail.gmail.com> <383329d88978415c9b0a12f473787c2e@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2yQp7eg9hsVR_+HcePd+OcLLM+6A1yC0-kM-D5Pm2Yasg@mail.gmail.com> <69bcbba5c2af4dfd92c3fea706805da7@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2yjDfep-WxZj9roHAwXfP6nh6mC2x4-+jyemPQ8B8qTTQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2yjDfep-WxZj9roHAwXfP6nh6mC2x4-+jyemPQ8B8qTTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SiJY8wb1pW8LJuco5Y__l3AZKv8>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:37:28 -0000

Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Smith [mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:06 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>om>; 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>jp>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> On 9 February 2017 at 07:33, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > What you are digging into here is out of scope for this document in the same
> > way that orchestrating redirects for singleton destinations is out of scope for
> > RFC4861.
> 
> What RFC covers redirects? RFC4443 doesn't.

No, I am only talking about RFC4861.

> >  All it says in the validation checks is:
> >
> >   - The IP source address of the Redirect is the same as the current first-hop
> >      router for the specified ICMP Destination Address.
> >
> > It does not say anything about how all of the potential first-hop routers on
> > the link coordinate among themselves to make sure that the Redirects don't
> > steer hosts into a rat's nest of endless loops.
> >
> > Yes, just the same as for redirects of singleton destinations, there is an
> > implied trust basis that routers that send Redirects will behave truthfully
> > and consistently. It is no different for Redirects that contain RIOs.
> >
> 
> Then my use case is not a use case for this. I have to provide
> services to stub routers, but cannot trust them to act entirely
> benevolently, because I don't own, operate or even have much influence
> over what brand they are. I want to provide a the best and possibly
> better service to them because their owners are paying me to e.g.,
> local layer 2 switching in the exchange, but I cannot let one customer
> impact the service of any other customer.

OK, but then that sounds like either a different document or a Security
Considerations note for this document. But, the mainline validity check
needs to stay generic.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> Regards,
> Mark.