IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Thu, 20 July 2017 21:22 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 0A8B51201F2 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 CsYDYSpHyo9b for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 977AA129482 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-f50.google.com (mail-it0-f50.google.com [209.85.214.50]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B352B27844A for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 06:22:39 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-it0-f50.google.com with SMTP id h199so22609830ith.0 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1123gZ+VZbLB6aRopXoGWI8cseKegE0DM2Vqpz1cLCdjFbaW3S7T SJyvnLNyk9thROFYIPvhD0Uy2+e/FQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.200.66 with SMTP id w63mr4551446itf.13.1500585758464; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.167.19 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D13C88F7-2CB6-4D84-9FAD-DA10FEE7546C@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>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:22:37 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249ydZzvyigoZqUp=igH2aPGRZJVaerQvsoiTcOTiXpb7v3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249ydZzvyigoZqUp=igH2aPGRZJVaerQvsoiTcOTiXpb7v3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>
Cc: 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="94eb2c05a5dc16a2370554c6590b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/Lu2CudcFwhvKgpu3oYj2DSiRIKc>
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 21:22:43 -0000

Hi Alan,

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?
--
Yoshi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email