IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Network Scanning

Sean Siler <Sean.Siler@microsoft.com> Mon, 07 April 2008 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A246F3A6956; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CFE3A6B9D for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d0qaoiaHNe7U for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0BB3A69DE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.96) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:03:37 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.169]) by tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.88.96]) with mapi; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:03:35 -0700
From: Sean Siler <Sean.Siler@microsoft.com>
To: TJ <trejrco@gmail.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:03:34 -0700
Subject: RE: Network Scanning
Thread-Topic: Network Scanning
Thread-Index: AciWniWbJoaIyT0aSSmECKkV+MqP+QAAScYAAAHI3hAAkkgbsA==
Message-ID: <F9296A6B5FA8B342A16483B956B26BB10670BB6522@NA-EXMSG-C114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <47F6A2D0.3040602@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <200804042201.m34M1Jec007787@omr12.networksolutionsemail.com> <004301c896a6$e5ff23e0$b1fd6ba0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <004301c896a6$e5ff23e0$b1fd6ba0$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:33:00 -0700
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

Microsoft based Operating Systems join the All Nodes On Link Multicast Group as specified by RFC 4291, but that RFC does not mandate that nodes must reply to ICMP echo requests.  So while we do not reply to pings to ff02::1, we are also in compliance with the RFC.


Sean Siler
IPv6 Program Manager
Microsoft
blogs.technet.com/ipv6



-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of TJ
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 3:55 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Network Scanning

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Brian McGehee
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 6:01 PM
> To: 'Jeroen Massar'; 'Prasanna Ram Venkatachalam'
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Network Scanning
>
> "ping6 ff02::1
>
> Which should make every single host on a link answer to it."
>
>
> Answer with it's link-local address, which is probably not the goal.

Unless autoconfiguration (SLAAC or Stateless DHCPv6) is in use and you can
derive the Global from the Link Local ... same EUI64.
Without more information, if you are on-link that ping is probably the
first/best approach.
        ... although some OSes break the RFC and don't reply ...

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Jeroen Massar
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:51 PM
> To: Prasanna Ram Venkatachalam
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Network Scanning
>
> Prasanna Ram Venkatachalam wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > With the evolving IPv6 which will be a mandate soon(as far as i
> know),
> > the network discovery is going to be very difficult. Is there any
> > optimized way proposed so far which can be used with IPv6 for network
> > discovery??
>
> ping6 ff02::1
>
> Which should make every single host on a link answer to it.
>
> For the rest, read the excellent paper by Steven M. Bellovin:
>
> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/v6worms.pdf
>
> Greets,
>   Jeroen



/TJ

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email