Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Combining IPv6 ND and DHCPv6 into a single, unified function

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 22 November 2017 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 57E0912EB4D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:33:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LONGWORDS=2.035, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 FZ_3Pwm8TtER for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x230.google.com (mail-yb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::230]) (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 D22AC12EB2D for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x72so5529494ybg.11 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:33:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=G4xKUa6+HAprE45vV0YEbcl72O5FS1IYmIKDP3tZnEE=; b=P22BOuSY4wQ4Ao4F0kXBRR+MZJ1OhoYZSBIVw90CtBPMyWOOdh8x1vLgigWQiXqwfg N2ZyXaEyPA582qarRXuUdxqDPD7eJMN/U2A31Y+l5Tt1MCD59ykDg3umwlv4qULcW1UY NMcdb3k7C/B2AKdGZRaT1+Itzr4xrKN5B3MbtiiRso4OIKOAnCOCrzLxy/CZ/16pJk9V dwpq/ALXxYYkyijkyOvlALLsXm0w5g2o1qt/mwZTILMMJprXDSSSUc2g5nTd+Nmy4QR0 Nwwh9CL3kyyuprR1X5m5U2NVOTxYyKsWJAXudbmXyj1ubdDrJjdiJ+LczkhgNG/YHFUy 4/3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G4xKUa6+HAprE45vV0YEbcl72O5FS1IYmIKDP3tZnEE=; b=H5zusJsfld+Qlp0ErigK2Z6pyx43LP0XfrIr//b4bh8LshtczY8lh0crUig4s1YAuK GvbQj28TLdz7QbhMRnGx8MJ4ZTrSiP6A0djUyFBFRlj2eaTLAcpaFNW8sldFbluw6fEa uqAomNYORRmynZm0jBu7WSng99fE1b38wwDU3OtRKZWOTqSETItHq9e3P3zmMzK4BuBV YEQ/dG6feo3ugt7o+nk7BUgzeFZeOV/Ex0WCxT0PWW0UK5+YjH1Cqj08VZcQxH03ykQR ZKDdJT4btBsFkvTQ/2mJ4hxGmEpXhLFQQ22ossawPHB5u8GbDiqnUWyGhReS1fTVWuvJ XsWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6binuc8+nOeDV4dUDIah1IYy7SKwNg1WPYHEVwuWh/Foc0opr5 6TUNfd0KDnn390c0uid85rDSjKp4NTZ7VJT3cERG5Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbDUyjFKEDafZ8EvUydtVHDJ+R+PHpw06BpeOkILp6GEsmt3jJqZZRi6zQDIN6AaB154cy0aYdpETA1E0/5MhM=
X-Received: by 10.37.66.75 with SMTP id p72mr13086674yba.63.1511336007721; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:33:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.4.194 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:33:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wd0wX3LFhim-ogPkWcLG29iByyGY_eTd3YzPziCoxFzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9debb1672e3d4f0d89d672d64e0fe579@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <7F30D7F6-7859-4D2B-B550-8C8CB944FF9F@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2wd0wX3LFhim-ogPkWcLG29iByyGY_eTd3YzPziCoxFzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:33:07 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2jFT3YutcvF1+B=KD2Km+Sgu7ayKMuOWsM2BxPbdDJgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Combining IPv6 ND and DHCPv6 into a single, unified function
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, dhcwg@ietf.org, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c04b04e0ee4f055e8d55ee"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ca4Wzr9oLposOtlndPqJppZEBLM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 22 Nov 2017 07:33:30 -0000

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Pushing layer 4+ configuration options into ND creates a dependency on
> router firmware for application deployment that doesn't exist today in
> either ND or DHCPV6.
>
> Another example of this trap. Remember that NTP amplification DoS from 3
> or 4 years ago? One place I'm aware of were using their PE routers to also
> provide customers with NTP time, and the router implementation was
> vulnerable. From memory, the vendor took around a week to release a fix.
> Then the next 6 to 8 weeks were spent organising high impact change
> controls because router firmware upgrades either required reboots or there
> was a hazard of one. The number of PE routers was in the 10s, imagine time
> and effort, and vulnerability exposure time if there were 100s or 1000s of
> PE routers providing NTP time to customers.
>
> Compare that to if the NTP service/application was not "in" the network,
> not "in" the routers' control planes, and as service reachable over the
> network. Only patches to the NTP servers would have been necessary, and
> there would have been far fewer of those.
>

These are all good reasons for ND being limited to only those options that
are strictly necessary for connectivity. There are those who argue that
even DHCPv6 is too low-level for that sort of thing and that
application-level configuration should be moved to another protocol.