IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] endpoint control

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 30 June 2016 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1346D12D95C for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3fYkQebIckkr for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBD7E12D4FB for <spud@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.182] ([128.9.184.182]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u5U04AGU020825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, "Smith, Kevin, (R&D) Vodafone Group" <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
References: <A4BAAB326B17CE40B45830B745F70F10EE37ACAE@VOEXM17W.internal.vodafone.com> <CALx6S35DbFk5ZXUf0ob+hziPb1d5xjZvGADP_g-rw=EYKbPOvw@mail.gmail.com> <A4BAAB326B17CE40B45830B745F70F10EE37B7F0@VOEXM17W.internal.vodafone.com> <CALx6S37xeV2Wp=Ms1bF52YPMdYytqCJ_2DMOn9JriykHegBQmw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <577461F8.4000003@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:08 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37xeV2Wp=Ms1bF52YPMdYytqCJ_2DMOn9JriykHegBQmw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: u5U04AGU020825
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/pnrpqGVg1g85_1HQWbCZT0qyewo>
Cc: "Brian Trammell (ietf@trammell.ch)" <ietf@trammell.ch>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] endpoint control
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:04:48 -0000


On 6/29/2016 4:26 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> ...
> Probably down to forwarding performance too, as Hop-by-Hop must be processed by all network devices. And deployability as you say; because IPv6 is unfortunately not prevalent yet in mobile core networks...
>
> The first problem is being relaxed in 2460bis draft. It allows HBH to
> be ignored by network devices, which should cover the case where there
> are "too many options to parse" in a DOS attack.

That doc recognizes that many devices do this, not that this is OK.

It only recommends not defining *new* HBH EHs - and not even in 2119
language.

It does not deprecate existing HBH EHs.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email