Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Wed, 11 July 2018 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63091130E7E; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 07:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CqSDbFAzqE7m; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 07:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06A54126BED; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 07:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6090; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531318236; x=1532527836; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=hRVcUJXBvZLx4X0RcgiT7845MNiIyLShjUya5mwFIlA=; b=g1sNWO3PB/GHxjGCaBie9s2RmDYJM6QZu3zKLUhA6kWHBWbylhL1lVNx wdrea4Mf0vqdOuciwfmI2ZXx/QsEPzrcqkt29kD7rU6hh85TI0T2M/EzI PzizOmHom1G2RlyktzSifC6vKx4VBV7wmXzp+dLcvUevf1e9CgLQDru1I Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,338,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="419082439"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jul 2018 14:10:35 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w6BEAYZv006047 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:10:35 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:10:33 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:10:34 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>, Jeffrey Haas <>, Benjamin Kaduk <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUEwtvzGLzonHmCkqL7Dn2J0VQzKR+qPEAgAAKF4CACrpYAP//5z6AgAD9ugD//8ltgA==
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:10:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:10:43 -0000

Hi Reshad, 

Ok - so are you saying that all that is being asked for is that the NACM rules on IGP BFD configuration be at least as strict as BFD since the IGPs are instantiated BFD sessions? I'd be ok with that. 


On 7/11/18, 9:25 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <> wrote:

    My read on the DISCUSS is not just wrt spoofing of BFD clients but also making sure that the proper access restriction (NACM) is used for the BFD clients. 
    I didn't interpret Benjamin's comments as requiring a security boundary between BFD clients (BGP, IPGPs) and BFD running on the same dveice, which I agree would be preposterous.
    On 2018-07-10, 10:17 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <> wrote:
        On 7/10/18, 7:46 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" < on behalf of> wrote:
            On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 10:56:49PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
            > On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 03:20:42AM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
            > > <RR> I am not 100% sure I understand the point being made. Is it a question of underlying the importance of having the IGPs authenticated since the IGPs can create/destroy BFD sessions via the local API?
            > That's the crux of the matter, yes.  Since (in this case) the IGP state
            > changes are being translated directly into BFD configuration changes,
            > the NETCONF/RESTCONF authentication is not really used.  So, any
            > authentication/authorization decisions that are made must be on the basis
            > of authentication at the IGP level.  This does not necessarily mean a hard
            > requirement for IGP authentication, though using unauthenticated IGP would
            > then be equivalent (for the purposes of this document) to allowing
            > anonymous NETCONF/RESTCONF access.
            > I'd be happy to just have a note in the security considerations that "when
            > BFD clients such as IGPs are used to modify BFD configuration, any
            > authentication and authorization for the configuration changes take place
            > in the BFD client, such as by using authenticated IGPs".  But feel free to
            > reword in a better fashion; this is really just about acknowledging the new
            > access mechanism (since the boilerplate covers SSH/TLS for
            > NETCONF/RESTCONF).
            I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the request here.
            In the cases where BFD as a top level module is not the creator of a BFD
            session, you seem to be concerned that BFD can be used to attack a resource
            by spoofing that non-BFD client.
            While this is perhaps logically true, it also means that you have a far
            greater problem of being able to spoof the underlying BFD clients.  To give
            some real-world examples:
            - BGP typically requires explicit configuration for its endpoints.
            - Both OSPF and ISIS will require a matched speaker with acceptable
              configuration parameters for a session to come up.
            - Static routes with BFD sessions will require explicit configuration.
            In each of these cases, a client protocol that also wants to use BFD, the
            simple spoofing of the protocol endpoints is already a massive disaster
            since it will allow injection of control plane or forwarding state into the
            device.  This is so much worse than convincing a BFD session to try to come
            up with its default one packet per mode that ... well, I'm boggled we're
            even talking about this. :-)
            My request would be that we not complicate the security considerations of
            this module for such cases.
        I agree. This is DISCUSS is just preposterous - imposing some sort of security boundary between the IGP modules and the BFD module running on the same networking device.
        Acee (LSR WG Co-Chair) 
            -- Jeff