Re: [mpls] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 08 October 2015 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BED41B2D2B; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7U6nLL77-Aak; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 247E51B2D2C; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so36638694wic.0; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5B04CGJ3WqAKXjv42uobylGQqD7tjQxBUGDjsygRTAQ=; b=VT9doEQJI6QNSvaEoDXSjBNbnQXQr60L08bBCLrAbj6wJO3djulB2lySUJhZWrcfMw rgxXfPiCu6qcEgQpTQ9UpBxxnlQRrrW3RnrcV9pqQUiZS+EWl/0A3ReAtFPifzDKm2sN 8Pp59UC9AyCzGvm1rIv7TF5uCtNpOzerEU6J9vNdG5SKUlSIjnLB8OYMLvGtJTBH2eCi k87cr9X+peMRsouWIcWmRxMDU8S/jllzrh+Yj0sIBOTDA6AxBZ5wxvguR0aG6sF6d0rs 84Lrlmld941sSnm38xtk3ANBwuAbEfYobhN40yIG1ngERzbC6NrnhzkaGkEpHjUL1+H+ u7MA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.195.11.72 with SMTP id eg8mr10791822wjd.14.1444327872726; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.214.213 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B60A73E@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <20150929151503.2931.97454.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B606E58@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com> <562A4F65-2A63-4D75-BCF6-6F6ECC77CC41@gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B606F0D@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAHbuEH7WetBik3eJtUB1yyQSTRazpLimLhDov48Kym9miFrJsQ@mail.gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B60A73E@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:11:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH7MZ1tVK_XbpkrqE+4MpLcCZ9pSOxeP9dR=Hvk4MvUnwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/jnvNy6-3QORdSGJvXUbRBTstet4>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "rcallon@juniper.net" <rcallon@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:11:16 -0000

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Kathleen,
>
> Sorry for the delayed response, just returned from the National Day Holidays!
>
> We will upload the updated document that addresses all received DISSCUS and comments so far.

Thank you, I'll look for the update to come through.  I hope you
enjoyed your holidays!
Kathleen


>
> Thanks,
> Mach
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 12:12 AM
>> To: Mach Chen
>> Cc: The IESG; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org;
>> mpls-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org; rcallon@juniper.net;
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with DISCUSS)
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Kathleen,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your prompt response!
>> >
>> > Please see my reply inline...
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:39 AM
>> >> To: Mach Chen
>> >> Cc: The IESG;
>> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org;
>> >> mpls-chairs@ietf.org;
>> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org;
>> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org;
>> >> rcallon@juniper.net; mpls@ietf.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on
>> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with DISCUSS)
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for suggesting text quickly to address this.  Inline
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Kathleen,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for reviewing the draft and the suggestion!
>> >> >
>> >> > Regarding the DISCUSS, how about the following update?
>> >> >
>> >> > OLD:
>> >> > Beyond those specified in [RFC4379] and [RFC7110], there are no
>> >> > further
>> >> security measures required.
>> >> >
>> >> > NEW:
>> >> > Those security considerations specified in [RFC4379] and [RFC7110]
>> >> > apply for
>> >> this document.
>> >> > In addition, this document introduces the Reply Mode Order TLV. It
>> >> > provides a
>> >> new way for an unauthorized source to gather more network
>> >> information, especially the potential return path(s) information of
>> >> an LSP. To protect against unauthorized sources using MPLS echo
>> >> request messages with the Reply Mode Order TLV to obtain network
>> >> information, similar to [RFC4379], it is RECOMMENDED that
>> >> implementations provide a means of checking the source addresses of
>> >> MPLS echo request messages against an access list before accepting the
>> message.
>> >>
>> >> If the message is not encrypted, this content is still exposed potentially,
>> right?
>> >
>> > Yes, but it is exposed within the MPLS domain.
>> >
>> >> This helps, but also mentioning lack of confidentiality protection
>> >> might be helpful too.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure whether this issue is specific to this document, seems this is a
>> common issue for MPLS OAM and control plane.
>> >
>> > If this is a concern, how about adding the following text:
>> > "
>> > Another potential security issue is that the MPLS echo request and
>> >    reply messages are not encrypted, the content of the MPLS echo
>> >    request and reply messages may be potentially exposed. Although the
>> >    exposure is within the MPLS domain, if such exposure is a concern,
>> >    some encryption mechanisms may be employed.
>> > "
>>
>> This additional text puts int he caveat that you are concerned with and limits
>> the scope to the MPLS domain, so I think that is helpful on both fronts.  The
>> two combined would cover any additional considerations for this draft nicely,
>> thank you.
>>
>> Please let me know when the updated text has been incorporated and I will
>> clear.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kathleen
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Mach
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >> Kathleen
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> > Mach
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
>> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 11:15 PM
>> >> >> To: The IESG
>> >> >> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org;
>> >> >> mpls-chairs@ietf.org;
>> >> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org;
>> >> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org;
>> >> >> rcallon@juniper.net; mpls@ietf.org
>> >> >> Subject: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on
>> >> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with DISCUSS)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>> >> >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: Discuss
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
>> >> >> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>> >> >> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please refer to
>> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> >> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mo
>> >> >> de-
>> >> >> simple/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >> -
>> >> >> DISCUSS:
>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >> -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This should be easy to resolve.  SInce this draft adds a new
>> >> >> capability to include the return path, this provides another
>> >> >> attack vector to observe path information that could be part of
>> >> >> reconnaissance gathering to later attack the network or path.
>> >> >> While the referenced RFC4379 mentions the following in the
>> >> >> security
>> >> considerations section:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   The third is an
>> >> >>   unauthorized source using an LSP ping to obtain information about the
>> >> >>   network.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The equivalent should be added for this new capability in this
>> >> >> draft, since now it's possible to gather the path information from the new
>> feature.
>> >> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen