Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 14 September 2016 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 6F2F812B384; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.809
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 UPAKeFtp_rDW; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6636F12B36D; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F1FBE56; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:42:08 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZQaGSUd3JfUk; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:42:08 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D83B3BE39; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:42:07 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1473871328; bh=Oa+Rz0xOIFmc909OJwkPg+8WD9Gfck/sATr/nPeisew=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=sY7J5i6hRXhZf7ftHcISYhv6/BLCPAqAwyRD25Jx3YmqNeu97xVwWwv4QwEYigplX Azkt4NjWuSEiG95KtLAf+RpHf0YxmjWqIaZFpsdWYlRNuluW+clAUNCPrKa6CucPXK MRnr7fxkkjEs3+tdfIm6XgMaKA9MzSW6yY7xNYaQ=
To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <147385003530.1966.83385935910172454.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <d8376f59-1fc5-7ba8-8223-e47dd0518381@uclouvain.be>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <6847d79e-d40d-3e8f-1800-5a2beeb3a53f@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:42:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d8376f59-1fc5-7ba8-8223-e47dd0518381@uclouvain.be>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms000503020707000302000800"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/jgrT4vGkAB1VeChuS8t8BPIdqqg>
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mptcp-experience@ietf.org, mptcp-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:42:26 -0000

Hiya,

On 14/09/16 17:13, Olivier Bonaventure wrote:
> Stephen,
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> I was a bit sad that there was no reporting of
>> experiences with the security aspects of MPTCP.  Have
>> we really learned nothing worth saying about that?
>> Have we really seen no attacks on, or tailored to,
>> MPTCP? It seems odd that the answer to both questions
>> is "no."
> 
> There are already two RFC on security issues with MPTCP
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6181
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7430
> 
> We did not want to rediscuss those issues that are alreayd documented on
> the security of MPTCP itself.
> 
> Another point is the impact of MPTCP on existing IDS, firewalls and
> other types middleboxes that could only see a portion of the traffic.
> There have been blackhat presentations on this, e.g.
> 
> https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-14/materials/us-14-Pearce-Multipath-TCP-Breaking-Todays-Networks-With-Tomorrows-Protocols.pdf
> 
> 
> I haven't seen deployment of those attacks, but could extend section 3.5
> or discuss this in a bit more details if you think that this would be
> useful.

If such text would be considered useful in the RFC,
then I'd be for it. I'm happy that the AD/chairs/editors
and WG figure that out. I'm equally happy to review if
someone proposes text.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> 
> Olivier
>