Re: [savi] Potential issue for all SAVI mechanisms?

Hi,
For me it's also fine the 'just mentioning the issue and the consequences' approach.

Regards,
Alberto

|  -----Mensaje original-----
|  De: savi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:savi-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de Jun
|  Bi
|  Enviado el: sábado, 10 de septiembre de 2011 19:12
|  Para: Jean-Michel Combes; Fred Baker
|  CC: SAVI Mailing List; Alberto García
|  Asunto: Re: [savi] Potential issue for all SAVI mechanisms?
|  
|  I vote for "just mentioning the issue and the consequences"
|  
|  I agree with Fred and Joel. This common threat should be fixed by 6man or
|  other WGs working on IPv6 itself.
|  In SAVI, we just mention the issues (and actually also the requirement to fix
|  it by other WGs). Especially when the current SAVI charter forbids to change
|  protocol or create new protocol, our solution is weakened, then it is hard
|  for us to fix it completely.
|  
|  thanks,
|  Jun Bi
|  
|  
|  
|  -----原始邮件-----
|  From: Jean-Michel Combes
|  Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 1:03 AM
|  To: Fred Baker
|  Cc: SAVI Mailing List ; Alberto García
|  Subject: Re: [savi] Potential issue for all SAVI mechanisms?
|  
|  OK. Thanks.
|  
|  I would appreciate the opinion from other people in the WG (i.e., just
|  mentioning the issue and the consequences v.s. mentioning the issue and
|  adding text about a potential solution to mitigate it), please.
|  
|  Thanks.
|  
|  Best regards.
|  
|  JMC.
|  
|  2011/9/9 Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>:
|  >
|  > On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Jean-Michel Combes wrote:
|  >
|  >> Hi Fred,
|  >>
|  >> same clarification: from your point of view, we have just to mention
|  >> the issue without adding a potential solution to mitigate it,
|  >> correct?
|  >
|  > Yes. From my perspective, the most likely solution to be developed in
|  > 6man is to ignore ICMP messages with headers or which arrive
|  > fragmented, so that sending the messages is at most a bandwidth dos
|  > but has no other real effect. In SAVI, however, it makes sense to
|  > mention that there is a problem.
|  >
|  >> Thanks.
|  >>
|  >> Yours,
|  >>
|  >> JMC.
|  >>
|  >> 2011/9/6 Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>:
|  >>>
|  >>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
|  >>>> It seems to me much better to note this vulnerability in SAVI, and
|  >>>> leave it there.
|  >>>> If we want it fixed, 6man should simply instruct hosts not to
|  >>>> accept RAs or DHCPs in fragmented packets.
|  >>>
|  >>> having 6man fix it makes sense to me. I'm not sure how we can fix it
|  >>> in SAVI without asking the switch to reassemble fragmented messages.
|  >>> _______________________________________________
|  >>> savi mailing list
|  >>> savi@ietf.org
|  >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi
|  >>>
|  >
|  >
|  _______________________________________________
|  savi mailing list
|  savi@ietf.org
|  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi
|  
|  _______________________________________________
|  savi mailing list
|  savi@ietf.org
|  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi