Re: CRH and RH0

otroan@employees.org Tue, 12 May 2020 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 B89D43A0C35 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 299DKQGBjSuS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 759243A0C2B for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (dhcp217197164175.blix.com [217.197.164.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08C674E11D39; Tue, 12 May 2020 22:04:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB5C33DF685; Wed, 13 May 2020 00:04:00 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB6348345A76F32CE07392AA58AEBE0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 00:04:00 +0200
Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3C800B54-6E3B-483A-8FA0-50075043DFD1@employees.org>
References: <4EDFE9A2-A69C-4434-BB0A-960C2453250F@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB6348FE6E3A45320C2A47EB66AEBE0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8068EBE1-38DD-411E-A896-EB79084BBCC4@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB6348326B0F72A009DB4F7746AEBE0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <942AF8C7-079E-4C81-95AB-F07A182E8F19@employees.org> <DM6PR05MB63483621F4AD3DEACA6FAF35AEBE0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6F11579E-0F8A-48EB-86EC-945E17C11BF4@employees.org> <DM6PR05MB6348345A76F32CE07392AA58AEBE0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UyXsGeI7IDM9_Z1lipG70gIzTLY>
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, 12 May 2020 22:04:08 -0000

Ron,

> What claim needs further substantiation?

Eh... the claim that CRH could be a RH0 replacement.
Not sure if that's something we'd want anyway, but I wasn't the one making that claim.
Nor did I think that was CRH's purpose.

To repeat:
If CRH could be a RH0 replacement, you would have to show how the tag distribution mechanism would work across the Internet?
RH0 was supported in every IPv6 node, given the requirement for a tag->IPv6 address (or is it forwarding method) mapping, I can't quite see how that would be done in a general enough fashion for CRH?

I don't think RFC5095 taught us that source routing cannot be done across the Internet.
In fact I don't see how the CRH draft prevents the RFC5095 attack to happen inside of the CRH limited domain.
Just send a packet with a list of tag#0, tag#1, tag#0, tag#1 and you have the same amplification attack.

Ole