IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [shara] [BEHAVE] TR: I-DAction:draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-00.txt

<mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com> Fri, 06 February 2009 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: shara@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shara@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60643A693D; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:35:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 A0c65G66ORl2; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:35:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDAEA3A6B18; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:35:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ftrdmel3.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.155]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:35:19 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:35:18 +0100
Message-ID: <6CF039C5B32037498B02251E11CDE6B007BB734A@ftrdmel3>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] [shara]TR: I-DAction:draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcmH6rF7O8eIFT3dRwGVzm6VhD6rmwADK9cQAAsCqgA=
References: <6CF039C5B32037498B02251E11CDE6B007BB7096@ftrdmel3><004e01c987e9$8b837df0$c2f0200a@cisco.com><m2hc38zcd3.wl%randy@psg.com> <E9CACA3D8417CE409FE3669AAE1E5A4F118EB4D7AF@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>, <randy@psg.com>, <dwing@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2009 06:35:19.0582 (UTC) FILETIME=[147F3BE0:01C98825]
Cc: behave@ietf.org, shara@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [shara] [BEHAVE] TR: I-DAction:draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-00.txt
X-BeenThere: shara@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sharing of an IPv4 Address discussion list <shara.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara>, <mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shara>
List-Post: <mailto:shara@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara>, <mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 06:35:28 -0000

Thank you for your comment.

There is a subtlety between subnet mask and port mask: subnets need to be hierarchical but not port ranges!

Non contiguous port range is proposed as a solution to assign with a single mask for instance "M" Port Ranges with "n" Port Ranges within the well-known Port Range. This means that well-known PR won't be assigned to the same user. 

I see other advantages on the usage of non contiguous PR: e.g. an attacker would have more difficulty to "guess" a port value within the Port Range.

By the way, I have the same question as Randy.


Med

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Dave Thaler
Envoyé : vendredi 6 février 2009 02:10
À : Randy Bush; Dan Wing
Cc : behave@ietf.org; shara@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] [shara]TR: I-DAction:draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-00.txt

Yes.  :)

I had the same feedback last IETF.
This is the same thing all over again as a non-contiguous subnet mask, which the industry effectively got rid of as having too many problems in practice (but being fine in theory).

-Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:35 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: behave@ietf.org; shara@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [shara] [BEHAVE] TR: I-DAction:draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-00.txt

> I like this draft overall, but I would restrict this so that only 
> contiguous port ranges are permitted.  Non-contiguous subnet masks are 
> difficult for many people to understand (even today) and I expect 
> there would be similar confusion with non-contiguous port ranges.

do people have to understand these?

randy
_______________________________________________
shara mailing list
shara@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email