Re: [shim6] Problems with ULID (IP) over longer sessions.

[Alberto García <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

|  -----Mensaje original-----
|  De: Javier Ubillos [mailto:[e-mail]]
|  Enviado el: lunes, 03 de mayo de 2010 11:57
|  Para: Alberto García
|  CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
|  Asunto: RE: [shim6] Problems with ULID (IP) over longer sessions.
|  
|  On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 16:20 +0200, Alberto García wrote:
|  > Hi,
|  >
|  > |  -----Mensaje original-----
|  > |  De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre
de
|  > |  Javier Ubillos
|  > |  Enviado el: miércoles, 28 de abril de 2010 14:21
|  > |  Para: [e-mail]
|  > |  CC: Zhongxing Ming
|  > |  Asunto: [shim6] Problems with ULID (IP) over longer sessions.
|  > |
|  > |  Hi folks.
|  > |
|  > |  Some time ago I heard a discussion about a potential issue with
shim6.
|  > |  That the Upper Layer Identifier (ULID), chosen as the first pair of
|  > |  locators used in the communication, could cause
|  > |  problems/confusion/somethingelse when those locators where no longer
|  > |  used by the hosts. I.e not in the locator lists.
|  >
|  > That's not much precise...
|  
|  Sorry, I was being deliberately vague.
|  I'm not sure what the details are, and I did not want to rule some
|  possibility out due to my own misunderstandings.
|  
|  >
|  > |
|  > |  I'm unsure about the details of what would cause the problem or what
the
|  > |  consequences could be.
|  > |
|  > |  My own first reaction is that if a software believes it's
communicating
|  > |  with an IP (a shim6 ULID), it might try to spawn more sockets/flows
to
|  > |  that IP.
|  >
|  > This is completely reasonable. If a Shim6 context exists for a
|  > communication, Shim6 will use the locators in use for the existing
context,
|  > even if the ULIDs are no longer locators.
|  > RFC 5533 even supports establishing a new session for a ULID which is
not a
|  > valid locator, by using other addresses and including the ULID as an
option.
|  >
|  > Don't see here any problem.
|  
|  Then I'm confused about how the context is used and re-used.
|  I thought that each new call to socket() would create a new context,
|  independently of source/destination address pairs.

This is discussed in RFC 5533, D.1. "Context Granularity"

Regards,
Alberto

|  
|  >
|  > |
|  > |  Have this kind of issues been discussed previously on this list? ( I
|  > |  couldn't find any discussions about it).
|  > |  Have any one on this list some more detailed thoughts/experience
about
|  > |  what could cause issues?
|  > |
|  > |  I'm asking this because a couple of colleges and I are looking at
using
|  > |  alternative ULIDs which hopefully would be more of a match with
session
|  > |  identifiers/FQDNs or similar.
|  >
|  > Well, security issues for these alternative ULIDs should be carefully
|  > considered.
|  
|  Ofcourse :)
|  
|  
|  Thanks for your reply
|  // Javier Ubillos