Re: [lisp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15

Dino Farinacci <> Mon, 27 August 2018 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF40127148; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sn8fBpdVBIfk; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E79A124BE5; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j26-v6so8061580pfi.10; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=29UPnE9hyUaTP4fdKCh/6rPsGsMwh6ERw7njdvZ0c5w=; b=q26R6mRdLD192JmFXPy2vyKoGGS9WpedHaCbbn92vycXiwyt0tWxsF3nHv48fyfZdx 0uSPwNuYJyAPy8Y+AlAN+te6OOTCkAtsM6dTzhscaJymOhksWJDpK0PhHVt8GcjnAfIx H8OSJKfKDF0t7c17EnycgFTuZevinkGazxFrkqsMT4UGUmIq8M+YWfaLe/VTNLgyAeTD U6pV5elzHbUXutp7zqXMqMvultzqDELz1WffZPyMW7KgKZoS6jhxabqXwhBnwRUCUD+/ GGPxNHiRo//2peqXIPWla4IJF0pj2mJQqhIIEksH7CUp1yK8XMHy+vke5r8w8DKjLX/B /lKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=29UPnE9hyUaTP4fdKCh/6rPsGsMwh6ERw7njdvZ0c5w=; b=JevMTEQ2/YLPkgyX4p49aQcFwvsGhYDnSPfDLP3/+fS2+Wx8POBeUb4ZZa25V8QwFI HQBixEOhzvcEvDKnuLvTVJQZJyZBvd7uShnghO4rnSCoXv5PZevjwS1QCctIz8YH+T5N fSMftVjVVwlpAaLQkveGLhJ9kbuIH3e+N9M/M/JKJvdV+HlQ+iBy6+D3ueat3isD5moA LXLRtuxy8sLvQ8FHYJ7sfnBQnO7g5mXpERen1LqWyBhNuAntydBLm80A5dmH4OBJacYX jTfLcYZOMkuTfj8StZvkxkzKxwzW462ojPlsfeA40LcJ3QF7adcgV34TkRJXtNSMS7b+ aqoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51Dr+wA+ChoZMBAwTzpM2YZ8k3HD9wlgimtxk010dJY/XOA6J2aB CzCoplExd9awyNkx5yYfo3yOGD4t
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdb/MzD5F9Ns9ppUst8eUVG/rDha/371yn0vCcOr4x0kUZ0hOjCAXaDLcSxJ2jhDICviPdsWhQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:3c5c:: with SMTP id i28-v6mr13108164pgn.415.1535391404171; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 16-v6sm26924145pfo.164.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:36:42 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Brian Trammell <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:36:46 -0000

> (1) Common advice to all UDP-using encapsulation designers and implementors:
> please read RFC8085, especially section 3.1.11. As LISP's dataplane is
> basically an application of UDP, I was surprised to see no reference to RFC8085
> here. I believe that in the most common case LISP falls into case 1 here, but
> implementors of LISP ITRs should at least be made aware of the other cases.

I don’t see a section 3.1.11 in RFC 8085. Rather than make references, can you say what you think the issue is?

> (2) This is not transport-specific. Reading the document, it struck me that the
> design of the protocol has a few inherently unsafe features related to the fact
> that its wire image is neither confidentiality- nor integrity-protected. I
> think that all of the potential DDoS and traffic focusing attacks I could come
> up with in the hour I spent reviewing the document are indeed mentioned in the
> security considerations section, but as the security considerations section
> does not give any practical mitigation for dataplane overload attacks, it seems
> to be saying that RLOC addresses shouldn't be Internet-accessible, which as I
> understand it is not the point of LISP. I haven't seen a secdir review on this
> document yet, but I'd encourage the authors to do everything it asks.

RFC 8061 goes along with RFC6830bis. It addresses data-plane confidentiality.

> nit: Section 7.1. para 7 should note that the ICMPv6 message sent is called
> Packet Too Big, not Unreachable/Frag Needed.

We used “Packet Too Big” for all ICMP messages including IPv4 and hence we received comments about it on how it should change it to Network Unreachable. I will fix this for IPv6.