IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP backup flag attack via MP_PRIO message

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Fri, 21 July 2017 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC34129B61 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Yu7F5GHsWXGC for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 223EA129AD2 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A05C2784AE for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Jul 2017 05:37:48 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l7so26634652iof.1 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110V0JYfO04wOsNONaFIaT5GVqbgCBPE7DsVIv+2oAqACRgCR3MR 78G2sO7hprV1n9WGROdL4IoW3T91vA==
X-Received: by 10.107.36.136 with SMTP id k130mr8303470iok.7.1500669466957; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.167.19 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <FD7F4B1C-A8F0-4A2E-A224-AF0F5CBCB815@gmail.com>
References: <800c331f808d608354fc00be24283cb6.squirrel@webmail.cs.ucr.edu> <742E211F-F754-4149-88E2-3BE51645F49D@gmail.com> <c0929925-1b3a-e36c-511d-bda3da312a71@uclouvain.be> <20170720152058.GJ3049@Chimay.local> <D13C88F7-2CB6-4D84-9FAD-DA10FEE7546C@gmail.com> <CAO249ydZzvyigoZqUp=igH2aPGRZJVaerQvsoiTcOTiXpb7v3w@mail.gmail.com> <FD7F4B1C-A8F0-4A2E-A224-AF0F5CBCB815@gmail.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:37:46 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249yeuMgbZJ5Pou7s+-NVLKm8bwE4YznSzniFSciRLU_MY0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249yeuMgbZJ5Pou7s+-NVLKm8bwE4YznSzniFSciRLU_MY0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>
Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>, Ali Munir <munirali@msu.edu>, multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>, Franck Le <fle@us.ibm.com>, Alex Liu <alexliu@cse.msu.edu>, Zubair <zubair-shafiq@uiowa.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140e33080e0450554d9d629"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/1hwpUTm-BQtJZ25g10ZynNFFwkU>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP backup flag attack via MP_PRIO message
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:37:53 -0000

Hi Alan,

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Yoshi,
>
> On 20 Jul 2017, at 22:22, Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So the main reason for this was to permit the signalling of backup for a
>> subflow which was also signalled via ADD_ADDR. ADD_ADDR does not have a ‘B’
>> bit in it, so the priority would be signalled separately.
>>
>
> I think adding 'B' bit in ADD_ADDR has been proposed to be added in the
> bis draft.
> I have seen a few supports while haven't seen any oppositions.
> Do we need more discussions on this?
>
>
> Actually on further reflection (i.e. Christoph and Olivier reminding me
> offline), this would be unnecessary, since MP_JOIN has a ‘B’ bit so it is
> not required in ADD_ADDR.
>
> Given this I can see no reason to have the Address ID in MP_PRIO and feel
> we can remove it.
>
> (The proposal for a bit in ADD_ADDR was, I believe, as a “do not even
> attempt to establish to this address unless all other subflows fail - which
> is different to the ‘B’ semantics in MP_PRIO and MP_JOIN)
>

Yes, I thought it's a valid use case.
If we remove addr id from MP_PRIO, I think we will always need to establish
a subflow to make it backup.
--
Yoshi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email