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

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

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.

Thanks,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 12:12 AM
> To: Mach Chen
> Cc: The IESG; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Kathleen,
> >
> > Thanks for your prompt response!
> >
> > Please see my reply inline...
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:39 AM
> >> To: Mach Chen
> >> Cc: The IESG;
> >> [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >> 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:[e-mail]]
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 11:15 PM
> >> >> To: The IESG
> >> >> Cc: [e-mail];
> >> >> [e-mail];
> >> >> [e-mail];
> >> >> [e-mail];
> >> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> >> 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