Re: [Isis-wg] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Fri, 07 April 2017 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A20B128954; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 9IQu480dmgNU; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87669127867; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2054; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1491601479; x=1492811079; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ex9eRFrNp5aIHAeA9nV+XTDS3EGQEvumdwkHZtElj0k=; b=LRxgexDVFAFKGd6pT5dpWwcvxbv34BMAZbsHX8aqBd+XlXUwa7xLFjSm BPlJEc/nTc94lfEu1Z39rY2/BDNv/mln7CcDWle8WEh2XObpykD53r7bz OXEV4wYZOqYVHOk9v96kDiWWE8pJir0Gj8j/MMOftc9qvvHR6Humq8VNz A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AFAgCgB+hY/5JdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1OBbAeDX4oTkUSVV4IPhiICGoNEPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUWAQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BIxFFBQsCAQgaAiYCAgIwFRACBAENBYoHCKsJgiaKagEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAR2BC4VDggWCa4RWgwYugjEBBJYfhlkBklcKkTaTfgEfOIEFWxVSAYZ?= =?us-ascii?q?JdYgsgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,168,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="228460278"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Apr 2017 21:44:38 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v37LicQ9023688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 21:44:38 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 16:44:38 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 16:44:37 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04
Thread-Index: AQHSr90HdNwrO1bKAUiTTjwvgN+2naG6trYAgAAGPoCAAANsAP//wPeA
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 21:44:37 +0000
Message-ID: <EDD33B73-CDF2-42AB-AE8A-96073F449997@cisco.com>
References: <149159669211.11107.3275242226580240988@ietfa.amsl.com> <814d03ced1c64f18b20d23c65e7cdf04@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <8469f915-7e13-dead-7a4e-ab36506948da@nostrum.com> <1fd1507c9d5442d0a944e35da9b38b1d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1fd1507c9d5442d0a944e35da9b38b1d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <70AB0C03D82FC941A35D0037BC501F0B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/yPjI61AHjhDeRwSyfhHqO9FWcdc>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:44:54 -0000

On 4/7/17, 5:30 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:

Les:

Hi!

> System-id duplication is a problem for any deployment - not just autoconfig 
> deployments. And it will be disruptive in any network until it is resolved.
>
> The only thing autoconfig has added is a way to resolve this w/o manual 
> intervention. This in no way increases the vulnerability nor the disruption the 
> attacker can produce. (Yes - I state that quite intentionally).

I don’t know about Robert, but that is part of the discussion I would like to see.

Yes, duplicate system-ids have always been a potential problem, but this document introduces a new de-duplication mechanism that results not just in unsync’d databases, but in restarting adjacencies – so at least the manifestation of the problem is different.

> So you are asking us to repeat a discussion which has already been held in the context of 
> RFC 5304 and RFC 5310.
>
> It would be more appropriate to add the normal reference to RFC 5304/5310 in the 
> Security section than what you propose.

I don’t think it hurts to add a reference to those RFCs, but they are both about adding authentication – the problem in this document is exacerbated by the fact that there’s no authentication by default.

The lower layer authentication mechanisms are quite weak, specially knowing that, if in a home environment, for example, it may be relatively easy to connect to the WiFi network.

Alvaro.