Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Tue, 10 June 2014 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7481A02D2 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 vnku4Fs-2Kro for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0139.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BC2D1A027F for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB441.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.949.11; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:37:43 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.68]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.92]) with mapi id 15.00.0949.001; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:37:43 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
Thread-Index: AQHPhM36v1z5qcx3GU+Mb5TT+ra0YZtqkpgAgAAFDICAACBwoA==
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:37:41 +0000
Message-ID: <40ecc5d773874ecdbdc05763004acfa7@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <d690563db20d4fca945b810a14f37090@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B3A9D234-A6A2-45DC-B8FA-623B3A86DCE8@gmail.com> <a7c188aabbfe41ef80645d2ee1d6df99@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <E0485205-9FCD-46FC-B852-06259334A47C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0485205-9FCD-46FC-B852-06259334A47C@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-microsoft-antispam: BL:0; ACTION:Default; RISK:Low; SCL:0; SPMLVL:NotSpam; PCL:0; RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 0238AEEDB0
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(428001)(24454002)(51444003)(51704005)(377454003)(13464003)(199002)(189002)(76576001)(20776003)(80022001)(46102001)(79102001)(81342001)(19580405001)(66066001)(19580395003)(83322001)(74316001)(85852003)(64706001)(77982001)(92566001)(1411001)(83072002)(76482001)(86362001)(33646001)(101416001)(87936001)(21056001)(2656002)(76176999)(50986999)(54356999)(99396002)(99286001)(31966008)(81542001)(74662001)(4396001)(74502001)(93886003)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB441; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rbonica@juniper.net;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/POphdXuGhKQKV5DNtjUFWk0U2yo
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:37:50 -0000

Dino,

Exactly! So, assume the following:

- LISP is deployed on the global Internet
- An RLOC is mapped to some number of EID prefixes
- For a subset of those EID prefixes, the above mentioned RLOC is preferred
- An ITR receives a hint indicating that the RLOC is down (either through a LISP data packet or an ICMP message)

The ITR will verify RLOC reachability (possibly by polling the RLOC). But until the ITR has receives a response to its poll, how should it behave? Should it continue sending traffic though the above mentioned RLOC? Or should it begin to send traffic through another RLOC, if one exists? I don't see a normative recommendation. 

However, both behaviors have their drawbacks and could be vectors for attack.

                                                                                                           Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:23 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: LISP mailing list list
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> 
> As I keep saying Ron, you need to verify anything you intend to glean. The
> spec says the gleaning is "a hint" and not gospel.
> 
> Dino
> 
> On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Dino,
> >
> > Given that the LISP data packet or ICMP packet may be from an attacker, is
> it even safe to glean that? I think not.
> >
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:04 PM
> >> To: Ronald Bonica
> >> Cc: LISP mailing list list
> >> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 10, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Earlier in this thread, we agreed that when LISP is deployed on the
> >>> global
> >> Internet, mapping information cannot be gleaned safely from incoming
> >> LISP data packets. Following that train of thought, when LISP is
> >> deployed on the global Internet, is it safe to glean routing locator
> >> reachability information from incoming LISP data packets as described
> >> in RFC 6830, Section 6.3, bullet 1. If not, I think that we need to mention
> this in the threats document.
> >>
> >> What you can glean is that the source RLOC is up, but you cannot
> >> glean your path to it is reachable.
> >>
> >>> Given that ICMP packets are easily spoofed, when LISP is deployed on
> >>> the
> >> global Internet, is it safe to glean routing locator reachability
> >> information from incoming ICMP packets as described in RFC 6830,
> >> Section 6.3, bullet 2 and bullet 4. If not, I think that we need to
> >> mention this in the threats document.
> >>
> >> What you can glean is that the source RLOC is up, but you cannot
> >> glean your path to it is reachable.
> >>
> >> Dino
> >>
> >