IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-05

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Mon, 15 June 2009 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610A43A6C67 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 NvaYJ3rmJHkM for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f130.google.com (mail-qy0-f130.google.com [209.85.221.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B793A6985 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so10067qyk.29 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aganO8stIQtPGhe4fm7T/t6mzIpLZ4CPzi9O3cnN+Ho=; b=BFDkffMu2EAnYImS6XaeFueNppnqGJx6VrwNjYTZFI2CI/BCCz1pG23qkZVUehB0f+ OGxc62ssmba4CwkYdmegQBREqgPOREHKoiETEy3ox/tRAf3a/9uJyOkgVJXEe2wuv+mH CWv5OE3XM6CveUFRGjPYeImJlDiVBGekfFmCU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=lqpv6d3eUop0iRQGgA8G3NROkbs6JyBXJTA6IKZKowceDspewJGocPdOIXwWhLIkpw txSPIMZ/qqb+AtO26HTJoFUR7Or/AeI+OR6xVsvF34Q8M4Z1HhnfryiH2t53cLx/1wib 38Wt9F1msjQQVNIXO5Z5n3XDcQFwB6MIkc1LI=
Received: by 10.224.11.136 with SMTP id t8mr6717163qat.205.1245032915493; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?192.168.0.151? (148-82-231-201.fibertel.com.ar [201.231.82.148]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm925543qwb.6.2009.06.14.19.28.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A35B1CA.70207@gont.com.ar>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:28:26 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB221796D53C@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB221796D53E@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <4A30C093.5060408@gont.com.ar> <87hbyjey1e.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
In-Reply-To: <87hbyjey1e.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando.gont@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-05
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:28:29 -0000

Florian Weimer wrote:

>>> For instance, I'm not certain that setting the DF bit is only
>>> possible for hosts that support PMTUD ... is there a reference for
>>> that?
>> What's the reason for setting the DF flag for IP packets carrying TCP
>> segments if you don't implement PMTUD?
> 
> You don't have to put randomness into the IP ID field (at least in
> theory; in practice, DF=1 packets get fragmented, too).

Yes, in theory. For instance, IIRC Linux used to zero the IP ID field
when DF was set, but then backed-out this change.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email