IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-05

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 22 September 2016 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 32E5312C03A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 v2xdUowDMhgP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (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 BF10F12BE16 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id z190so63390673qkc.3 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LYpq2qkCUCcpMUimPA7clm1mCBEeRM8jMuZUdFTNlv0=; b=mNobFad2srSfZG1wt8ihgdU1FwN+AQZ9UH6yuW1h8IKzFJtadbv4N5JRFQ7Fp2s0SB bmxfiqH9WQSPn5/eonXgdqDp3WgAuzXcYRdfDew28A1Q/E9AZ9khX062yenHKY3SxALO nxJzeObLYoiDmwvDvuGeqkmOvXhrsEpvnlHyjei6SbCamkUwQBVrbeWufeoXNcMGM7FI b+XKnQF2nf4a3OqDh2kQMKuRTzOuVCLTnZnJRpPb86tM5wf+2euKgn6Rx4Ph+8bhoiTR 71vW9sZe/ti4Uo8TLH0T5MjW/oZuTrReA+HI0Yp26gtkBTNzhN37K3ZtPuoyGA7q4PwQ fW5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LYpq2qkCUCcpMUimPA7clm1mCBEeRM8jMuZUdFTNlv0=; b=fw1QH3NrHAECHWZE0xuHxUjBVyaXCa/V/j9HM8PnY1qsVDsoQA+Ec/rH8+LgP2aSl5 n9yixQrzunDSw2qbK0m5pErFFRP3dqG7wZTetxZTvzi94YS3okae9jtih8ZwjSKa2/QT EAxXa5yz0iTex8eO1vZRrWLYtUqrzMWrdTSfdlxslyCD+t0U7Ntzd+JWfIDm2lJEXpNM VSO0AlFBhl3goSfgnI1KqX+ZO/a9+9wCMIVXjkTz9NCW/mNcCOQW7I3pYBkojyLLHIe7 xd+LP13HCuxnGBbSXo5J7zCj9PbGWMG+ApEi/g6ORstaVwIcZl0S3TIH03/SYJSlbExW U2xA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwO6AlbEvZFcJw1YHU/LLjL0gXL9NUIEtiJlNSW7MduMCd0DNe7SylqhBs6qtXNIFFimHB/ryAa9/f8GgA==
X-Received: by 10.55.48.10 with SMTP id w10mr44568094qkw.43.1474507907876; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.54.227 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <084B66B9-2AC5-43DD-B89C-52E252975373@gmail.com>
References: <C75A2D0E-7808-4460-ABC0-AD612484663A@jisc.ac.uk> <C453AB9B-3FF4-4706-B5C2-8D747906C088@gmail.com> <5CBCFD97-C293-4C86-A851-6295B05D9FAA@jisc.ac.uk> <084B66B9-2AC5-43DD-B89C-52E252975373@gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:31:47 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: nfTt4uFFI5XXcr0YqShkkJRONnA
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeu9bdAHsOWfVjB_q4Ga2kOg18te-nawR6K6E27FX29Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-05
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pvaOGd88FnBKQtt4bT04N2hRZ9c>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 01:31:51 -0000

At Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:14:14 +0300,
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> p.20 is the 60 second rule commonly implemented? This seems a very high value, and could contribute to DoS effectiveness?
> >>
> >> It sets an upper bound, that is “within 60 seconds”.  It does not
> >> say all fragments must be held for 60 seconds.
> >
> > This was asked in Berlin; I recall Tim Winters reported that in
> > his experience of tests run, common platforms do obey the 60
> > second requirement (whether or not that may be an issue for DoS in
> > a high-speed network).

If this is DoS by having the receiving node exhaust memory for a huge
number of fragments, BSD variants (I believe all flavors of them) have
a simple defense against it: limiting the total number of fragments to
be held for reassembly and the number of original packets reassembled
from fragments.  It's actually derived from old IPv4 implementations,
so it should be a pretty common practice for other systems, too.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status