Re: [tcpm] DISCUSS: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 13 August 2008 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F863A69D2; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
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 7DD5E3A69D2; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, 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 HuzRaS5BV2cJ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EFA3A697D; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2444D198711; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:03:42 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96311986D6; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:03:41 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <48A2958C.8020009@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:04:28 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
References: <20080717102200.0757D3A69C6@core3.amsl.com> <200807181736.m6IHaWB3006186@venus.xmundo.net>
In-Reply-To: <200807181736.m6IHaWB3006186@venus.xmundo.net>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, david.borman@windriver.com, iesg@ietf.org, weddy@grc.nasa.gov, draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] DISCUSS: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Fernando,

>> Section 2.1 says:
>>
>> When receiving an ICMP error message that indicates a hard error
>> condition, TCP will simply abort the corresponding connection,
>> regardless of the connection state.
>>
>> Question. I was under the impression that recent specifications have
>> started to say to not blindly believe ICMP errors due to denial-
>> of-service concerns? If this is not the case, then no problem.
>
> I'm the author of the TCPM WG's "ICMP attacks against TCP draft". 
> While that draft was initially meant for the informational track, it 
> is now aims at "Informational". So, even when virtually all current 
> implementations behave as you describe, the IETF specifications remain 
> unchanged.

Ok. Perhaps it would be useful to state something about reality as well 
-- even if you do not recommend something else, I think you should 
acknowledge the fact that virtually all implementations behave differently.

>> Section 3.2 says:
>>
>> In scenarios where a node has no default routers and Neighbor
>> Unreachability Detection (NUD) [RFC4861] fails for destinations
>> assumed to be on-link, or where firewalls or other systems that
>> enforce scope boundaries send ICMPv6 errors, the sending node will be
>> signaled of the unreachability problem. However, as discussed in
>> Section 2.2, standard TCP implementations will not abort connections
>> when receiving ICMP error messages that indicate soft errors.
>>
>> Clarity. This is somewhat misleading. When the node has no default
>> routers it also has no prefixes, no global addresses and it will not
>> even try to use IPv6 towards other global addresses.
>
> Why not? What if a Router Advertisement has a "Router Lifetime" of 0? 
> Am I missing something?

Ah, I didn't think of this case. I'll leave it up to you if you want to 
edit the text to clarify what you mean. (I don't require you to and I'm 
not certain that it is needed.)

Jari


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