IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sun, 13 January 2019 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 7CAA7128766 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:57:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 l7Rdelnuohi9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67EC6124408 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:57:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x0DKvTeX087641 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:57:29 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <CAOSSMjV0Vazum5OKztWhAhJrjLjXc5w5YGxdzHgbzi7YVSk7rg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35KNhV2gFp9OdU+M1zy5WUuEAEvXkDXNDWWxi7uQ4e_cw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0rTdiiF2SjByxcMG6nhPCEjUH2pYBCOeK_FSGJ_ucDQw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34AyV9OpvnjQhQc56n5vfeVgU5Zd3kheP0g+XvsMbBV9g@mail.gmail.com> <1b2e318e-1a9f-bb5d-75a5-04444c42ef20@si6networks.com> <CALx6S37TJr++fC=pVoeS=mrO1fHc4gL_Wtu-XkVTswzs2XxXCA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36V7vrVyoTP0G6+S5XeFNB3KWS5UaNnVi20xogRERdCfg@mail.gmail.com> <973A1649-55F6-4D97-A97F-CEF555A4D397@employees.org> <CALx6S34YbBe8xBod3VsWVO33TpZcdxh2uV1vaO8Z_NKnVXp66g@mail.gmail.com> <A3C3F9C0-0A07-41AF-9671-B9E486CB8246@employees.org> <AEA47E27-C0CB-4ABE-8ADE-51E9D599EF8F@gmail.com> <6aae7888-46a4-342d-1d76-10f8b50cebc4@gmail.com> <CALx6S35QKOqn_Ywh9yzm1JDA8Xnp7fLPPmXUvomvz_xOZP8bfg@mail.gmail.com> <4373c8d2-b36f-39c7-3591-1263af0f155b@foobar.org> <CALx6S34QoOwUuzht3jTP87uCyWc-0a0pyNPHTYCftpPwRQKrtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <16fc05b4-e632-90bd-1f93-955de9673245@foobar.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:57:28 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34QoOwUuzht3jTP87uCyWc-0a0pyNPHTYCftpPwRQKrtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/hKsCvcFArbGWERRoEMjbvo9838s>
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: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:57:36 -0000

Tom Herbert wrote on 13/01/2019 20:29:
> No legitimate host implementation would send this either. If B is
> receiving these packets, the logical conclusion is that it's under DOS
> attack and someone is spoofing A's address.

or that host A has a broken ipv6 implementation.

>> There doesn't seem to be a compelling case to change the protocol to
>> accommodate this particular corner case.  It ranks as annoyance rather
>> than a serious threat.
> 
> Maybe not changing the protocols, but I still don't see a compelling
> case to knowingly accept packets that are highly likely to be a part
> of a DOS attack.

me neither, but that's an operational decision.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email