Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance
Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> Sun, 07 August 2011 21:57 UTC
Return-Path: <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.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 CC59A21F850E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 14:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 mxY92KJLBF1I for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 14:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.adam.net.au (smtp4.adam.net.au [202.136.110.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAB821F8509 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 14:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 219-90-209-53.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.209.53] helo=opy.nosense.org) by smtp4.adam.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>) id 1QqBMN-000166-Ur; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 07:28:16 +0930
Received: from opy.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [IPv6:::1]) by opy.nosense.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258733B363; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 07:28:15 +0930 (CST)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 07:28:14 +0930
From: Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance
Message-ID: <20110808072814.10ca9bec@opy.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CF32C15-36D0-4287-8573-ABF750F8BB08@bogus.com>
References: <4CF32C15-36D0-4287-8573-ABF750F8BB08@bogus.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.5; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
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: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 21:57:57 -0000
Hi Joel, I've been and am in the middle of starting a new job and moving inter-state over the last few weeks, so I haven't been able to spend as much time on this as I'd have liked to, as I'm quite interested in this issue being resolved. I haven't had a chance, and won't over the next few weeks to thoroughly read the draft, hopefully below is useful. I have been working on my own proposal to address this issue by abandoning the state held during the NS/NA transaction, and relying on the traffic originating hosts to retransmit their NS/NA triggering traffic if the stateless NS/NA transaction fails. On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 10:57:45 -0700 Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote: > Greetings, > > This is followup from our discussion in both v6ops and 6man. We got a lot of useful input, but I would like to ask the mailing list to see if we can solidify this into a course of action. > > For reference: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance-00.txt > > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/slides/6man-9.pdf > > > 1. Is this document (draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance) worthwhile? > Yes > 2. Is there critique of the two proposed 4861 changes? > > A. 7.3 NDP Protocol Gratuitous NA > > a. We believe the is the question is whether the technique would > be useful under duress, wether it is potentially dangerous, > if the safeguards are adequate, etc. > > B. 7.4 ND cache priming and refresh > Haven't had the chance to thoroughly understand them yet. > 3. Should we separate the potential mitigations (section 6) and implementation advice (section 7.1 and 7.2) into a separate document. Yes. > > A. Assumption (validated in v6ops at ietf81) is that v6ops would be happy > to take the mitigation and implementation advice as an informational document > > B. Assumption 2 a draft updating 4861 would be a standards track document. > > C. Assumption 3, should harmonize with draft-nordmark-6man-impatient-nud-00 > > 4. Is there anyone who thinks that an update to 4861 to address dos exposure is unnecessary? > I think this issue is essential to address. The end-users of the Internet, and the services/applications they use, usually reside on LANs, and LANs are vulnerable to this attack. The /127 or similar techniques aren't applicable to LANs or point-to-point links such as SP residential subscriber PPP/PPPoE sessions. A general method to resolve this issue for all links, regardless of their role in the network or their type should be the goal. > A. Just publish the advice and be done with it? > > Comments on some or all of these questions would help the authors decide where to go next. > > Thanks > Joel HTH, Mark.
- Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky-v6n… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… Mark Smith
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… Philip Homburg
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… Warren Kumari
- RE: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… George, Wesley
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… Fred Baker
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… james woodyatt
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… Erik Nordmark
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… james woodyatt
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… james woodyatt
- Re: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky… Joel Jaeggli