IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

"Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com> Thu, 05 April 2018 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ilubashe@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792B0126FDC for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 pEwEaPibWqqt for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C40D91267BB for <opsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w35NRVNa021541; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 00:29:26 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=EiwjI3nwD67mt1ExbEEQdq1OQPMbP45z4iF3+CyoRR0=; b=BfR1Mis/JQK/g8cDIRdFF/ZZeNbhdqxULgUWe9JXW1mjuKxq/NC30bAefs92bDbQMZtF 1GBXUNYuHVz+pcTsgKqGKMLlpJoC1VwafnGArxh/tmD/XvK8wUuhnSkrpBnxA8VgH8y2 D+EjH4CxyDgaXE7VOFSiZ/GP/qoxZZZUVQcTfRTgDAdnSvr+zfSDEk4JJuGfLgCyOmQJ BlCif0eDTYAL8tC/haaYHu76783j9N6h7uz2FwCmtUxbtRWDvBHGrlSK1T4TNxxS6C1u /5mA0j2MymwR2FFaEkhAiMY2FlTE41VqjT24p9tOr9GUv1j4OBO6IUStrIDCDNme9Y+8 2Q==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2h4n5g5kt4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:29:26 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w35NSjB2001743; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 19:29:24 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2h25nvvdw0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 05 Apr 2018 19:29:23 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 19:29:23 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.105]) by usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.105]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 19:29:23 -0400
From: "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com>
To: "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, Alexander Azimov <aa@qrator.net>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Montgomery, Douglas (Fed" <dougm@nist.gov>, Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
Thread-Topic: Re: [OPSEC] Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements
Thread-Index: AdPNM1MzYbmMZyl+REKKjp75wpSyawAAipDA
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:29:22 +0000
Message-ID: <dc804da2a07a403284c8e7aa71e898a3@usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.35.87]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-04-05_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=230 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1804050236
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-04-05_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=3 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=3 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=3 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=157 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1804050236
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/0FbR7dcAbtbnlUOMxkuUXiEQfc0>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:29:30 -0000

> (BTW, there was also a proposal in RTGWG meeting at IETF 101 by Igor Lubashev (Akamai).)

Thank you for mentioning my proposal.  I believe that the two approaches are complimentary.

While my proposal attempts to provide a more universal solution to the problem, it requires a BGP update and an implementation by all routers on path between the initial advertiser and the router performing uRPF.  This draft proposes a solution that can immediately work w/o a change to BGP on the router that implements it, albeit in a more limited set of circumstances.

Therefore, I support the adoption, and I am interested in more discussion in this problem area.

- Igor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email