IETF Logo Mail Archive

[savi] Potential issue for all SAVI mechanisms?

Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com> Tue, 21 June 2011 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0E011E809F for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2jYUSlpFvOX for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EA011E8096 for <savi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31so3772633ywp.31 for <savi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=2icds/Qd3yWcNjJ5i+mcytb4QqjkyOGPtjJM2W5wU70=; b=YHEOxvkJAI8txevEpBMcQ/8ynaMuEdbiS7QgtQf4WGnLNnMFuieMmi54G8c1yoHeO5 z7ybHGf8aCJiUx111cjXZkz733EZKF5tG5chYXs24ZGEXcPnwzL5WPdofPy9aIj5IlVB 77kIry12d8+5hfc8qczzq/YspSpwMP/qrQ5uU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=td7O74Pc+kSV0ev7OHsF5dFw0taKS6KjAXUL4GV/kc2MafgqG8XrKi0dyyCtZWfZr7 5h0AJHnI0BuhaaYvcQRHMaapAbUJHspahl2Tbw1CKKQXcBTOj2GgowMgWo9nGhqD7ids EirU/M8cJhtOwFpUYcAUKexV2rIdVA2tJsIzE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.190.170 with SMTP id e30mr11033061yhn.226.1308663456711; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.83.20 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:37:36 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Te8AS+sdhOGtCvgFqa48dHc80WQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
To: SAVI Mailing List <savi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [savi] Potential issue for all SAVI mechanisms?
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/savi>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:37:47 -0000

Hi,

Maybe you already know that there is a discussion on v6ops/6man MLs
about RA Guard evasion (cf.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14204.html).
One of the methods to perform this evasion is fragmentation: it seems
that a L2 device would not be able to re-assemble all the fragments
without an important extra-cost and so would not be able to determine
whether or not the message is a Router Advertisement (cf.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14240.html).

Knowing that:
(1) In common use-case, SAVI device is a L2 device
(2) SAVI mechanisms are based on NDP/SEND/DHCP messages inspection

I am wondering whether or not fragmentation would not impact strongly
SAVI specifications too: any fragmented NDP/SEND/DHCP message could
not update correctly the Binding Table and so what would be the
consequences?

I would appreciate comments from WG members, especially
implementors/manufacturers, about this.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Best regards.

JMC.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email