Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rogue-ra

Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> Wed, 09 June 2010 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <weiler@watson.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF38A28C0F1; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vc+igKk2lzle; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071FF3A69A9; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o59H1E3n097565; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:01:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id o59H1Dgr097560; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:01:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:01:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|54eb9730c008ee40f8ffa6e1026eae8cm52DUb03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F1C0B75B-584A-49F2-BA39-E32332E49758@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006091254200.59072@fledge.watson.org>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006030051570.57855@fledge.watson.org> <F1C0B75B-584A-49F2-BA39-E32332E49758@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|54eb9730c008ee40f8ffa6e1026eae8cm52DUb03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F1C0B75B-584A-49F2-BA39-E32332E49758@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:01:14 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-rogue-ra.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rogue-ra
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: secdir-secretary@mit.edu
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:01:46 -0000

Thanks for the explanation re: why the malicious RA text was removed.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Tim Chown wrote:

[reordering text for ease of reading]

>> Second, I'm surprised that the only end-host based solutions are 
>> staticly-configured packet filters (3.7) and delays (3.9).  Why not 
>> simply "try, try again": accept multiple RAs, see which ones work, 
>> and discard (or at least don't use) the rest?
>
> On your second point, yes, in theory, but you're pretty much 
> stepping into multihomed host solutions which are rather out of 
> scope for this draft.  For genuine multiple RAs (or RAs with 
> multiple prefixes) there's also RFC3484 address selection.  What our 
> draft basically says is that unintended RAs can cause 'badness', and 
> here are some solutions to them that enterprise administrators could 
> apply.

I'm not convinced that "test before use" is necessarily equivalent to 
multihoming.  And the doc is already covering some host-based 
mitigations (in 3.7 and 3.9).  Why discard this one?

-- Sam