Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01

Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> Mon, 03 January 2011 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014AC3A6B54; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:58:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.125
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bREY+0MX9nfZ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-1.MIT.EDU []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ABC3A6B53; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:58:44 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 1209190c-b7ba9ae0000009f8-7f-4d222af3e6c5
Received: from ( []) by (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id FA.FE.02552.3FA222D4; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:00:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU []) by (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p03K0mCd027974; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:00:48 -0500
Received: from (CATHODE-DARK-SPACE.MIT.EDU []) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p03K0jGh005006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:00:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from tlyu@localhost) by ( id p03K0jQg002512; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:00:45 -0500 (EST)
To: Fred Baker <>
References: <> <>
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:00:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <> (Fred Baker's message of "Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:44:24 -0800")
Message-ID: <>
Lines: 42
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: IPv6 Operations Chairs <>, " IESG" <>,
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:58:46 -0000

Fred Baker <> writes:

> Question for you. I have left the authors off the paper for the moment.
> Mr Gont has recently posted a draft:
>   "Mitigating Teredo Rooting Loop Attacks", Fernando Gont, 7-Sep-10,
>   <draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops-00.txt>
> and is pushing for adoption as a working group draft. When asked to
> consider merging his paper with this or another draft, he has been
> unwilling. The chairs have basically told him to discuss his draft
> on the list "and we'll see where it goes".

The draft filename implies 6man, not v6ops; which working group was
asked to consider it?  By "his paper", do you mean the following item
in the Informative References of draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops-00?

              Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol
              version 6 (IPv6)",  UK Centre for the Protection of
              National Infrastructure, (to be published).

The Teredo attacks and the protocol-41 attacks appear to be mostly
separate, and probably don't interact, with the possible exception of
using a protocol-41 tunnel to initiate a Teredo routing loop attack.

> One of your criticisms of this draft is that it doesn't cover his
> USENIX material. Would you prefer that this and Mr Gont's draft be
> merged?

A reader of this draft might erroneously conclude that it adequately
addresses all of the attacks described in the USENIX paper.  However,
I think it's sufficient to mention the existence of the Teredo
attacks, citing the USENIX paper and the Teredo routing loop draft,
because someone who reads draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops might not be
aware of the related attacks without reading the actual USENIX paper.

It would also be a good idea to briefly state that the Teredo attacks
are mostly separate from the protocol-41 attacks, and are therefore
treated in another document.