Re: CRH and RH0

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 12 May 2020 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 6DEF63A0C58 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 e3P4j02nIotZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (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 E6E413A0B1E for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id y24so26000599wma.4 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=a1v9HqRMoOZaxfysTUve2ee1zupqonPKv4rvok6Mikg=; b=ITwypu6JWgGYg0jio9zYcJtaPVGRAN7dXK/LzIEpm4ClxXonRGkiJzzucHQkoAZJM6 oOGSssUjxwNQrrZtAeQyQfV2wXvbyCln1s/2cp+DFS1tLz22gTS9MEtqNf72AlbmDIJe 2BvZuTxVrDqiKlhpHg5lDE4LmuNNZ/X+nwCPMPxhryRpn60538arrC6Pq3DBVm1gtNr8 4lUXNPMj+CUXdfe+fM+gL5yXaNYiE7WCgO5oyZvBVK7PDMhCCJJtdSCUO/RjTPqDL9ak VKI8dsRS7HzpUSGcCMF0WRUbnZ4v3o9b4jx6PoGBC6FxME5RVtckaqNLSuN8eePERKC6 Syeg==
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=a1v9HqRMoOZaxfysTUve2ee1zupqonPKv4rvok6Mikg=; b=EE5Leovpmel7NP/h4ZsIqRnriZN5aOJFGC/vhpDgA9d+SUR9lc6tCaEckl/qezhEO3 AypsGiojIbcV9T9mhPxUVdcxSr7JCRBH/p3xgc7We8YlEdfDuriP6qogGjfR+FSzqqoZ dWxpOJ9gNBL5WBilFgrWOdOwBZUdn2pizYBOhDUagFcHmayKh7M9SYGpqa9lfsYyY4Zi cDjAepHZZcDTUCAv2NvxijsS9fVaCbNOhutlwCKzEzVTr8KYTZ0ZvuIxFMuvlOgbHuD6 zdLlu8dqOIg5rxBMgEBpwxT1Dvk58iO+Zia9GjuPozmR5d5jzz04AuEfpnJikA6vd5X9 MR9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubJAoRqqwuNmgK4sFVmESrXfuFsk8MZAmTQ4viYoiRfza6xBLYL AauvhbblGGW0MWai1GnuF1Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypI0WnCH91bk22ui7e6c7aMKy0kVCzSWUTG9QoM6EnbsShqy+yEJ7pn2nwlptofL49QxiOzsfg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6583:: with SMTP id z125mr21967149wmb.102.1589324306270; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:a8ee:1611:4a33:248? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:a8ee:1611:4a33:248]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n9sm11465364wmj.5.2020.05.12.15.58.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E800E9A3-C05B-41E0-B752-3E0D067BDBE5@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_34834E50-E74E-4EA6-B7D6-AAC6968FF39C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:19 -0700
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB63480871BD73F8D35A3D501AAEBE0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.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> <3C800B54-6E3B-483A-8FA0-50075043DFD1@employees.org> <DM6PR05MB63480871BD73F8D35A3D501AAEBE0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/dwxDkxF4qU_uaxID7Jvg7tqugtU>
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 22:58:32 -0000

Ron,

> On May 12, 2020, at 3:23 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Ole,
> 
> The draft never claimed to be a replacement for RH0. It only claimed to address RH0's shortcomings.

Any new RH needs to show why it doesn’t have the problems that RH0 did.   That does not make it a replacement for RH0, just a new Routing header.

In my view, anything claiming to be a replacement for RH0 would need to have full IPv6 addresses.   That doesn’t appear to be the case with what you are proposing.

Bob


> 
>                                                                                         Ron
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: otroan@employees.org <otroan@employees.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 6:04 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------