IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> Thu, 15 December 2016 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13174129875; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:17:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oMWvbxDfi9tH; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B09E9129FF7; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:15:50 +0000
From: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
To: "stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "aamelnikov@fastmail.fm" <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, "hrogge@gmail.com" <hrogge@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [manet] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSVJxQuXSWkPgmk0meQl1pSW0OMqEFJscAgACCnYCAAxBmgIAABtAA////dgCAAF4kgIAAAS2AgAADuYA=
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:16:09 +0000
Message-ID: <1481814969.2566.31.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <148156334986.22491.1152871712874859894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALtoyonu77P8O2r4zHvD5kBF7+yFc8Fxqe0BoEzeM6BsdoMZZg@mail.gmail.com> <79D48CEB-2CFC-43A8-8D01-5C5CB1778966@fastmail.fm> <CAGnRvupMRvpFq7EVfR4+QX88PG8fMnX49bAZ0_L9tm1a6sYX8g@mail.gmail.com> <9B802ACF-84EF-4C47-92F8-122CA724C71A@fastmail.fm> <CAGnRvuqKEwSU0nnkufzetGGUVzPSFjNOF6wrW=CRqc=t0x4dsQ@mail.gmail.com> <1481813917.419436.820073297.68E45D5D@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4f81336b-b9be-2891-f502-90cae6955e56@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4f81336b-b9be-2891-f502-90cae6955e56@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4c93b861-d41b-4bc1-99ab-c895f23716ec>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/pN0h2oCHRWxGjXeZ3DEhywiNwtk>
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-manet-dlep@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-dlep@ietf.org>, "manet-chairs@ietf.org" <manet-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:17:14 -0000

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:02 +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> On 15/12/16 14:58, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > 
> > That is the question really. If the date is exposed outside of LAN,
> > does
> > it contain no sensitive information?
> > 
> If someone can tell a router that AA.BB/16 is connected "here"
> then that'd I guess cause the router to send packets to that
> interface that'd otherwise go out the default. Seems like that
> could be the basis for some attacks, wouldn't it?
> 

Agreed, network topology information is sensitive enough to warrant
some kind of protection.

Rick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email