Re: [trill] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname-06: (with DISCUSS)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 24/09/15 21:26, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Don,
>>
>> Yes, that'd do the job. If there were any sensible pointers
>> to the kind of proprietary things folks do (e.g. in some
>> workshop paper or product documentation) then that might be
>> useful, but I can imagine there might not be.
> 
> I'm not aware of such write-ups.

Fair enough, wasn't meant as a blocking comment anyway, so
I'm fine to clear with your suggested change.

S
g

> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [e-mail]
> 
>> Thanks,
>> S.
>>
>> On 24/09/15 04:46, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> Would the following change resolve your DISCUSS?
>>>
>>> OLD
>>>    This draft does not introduce any extra security risks. For general
>>>    TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325].
>>>
>>> NEW
>>>    Since currently deployed LAALPs [RFC7379] are proprietary, security
>>>    over membership in and internal management of active-active edge
>>>    groups is proprietary. A rogue RBridge that insinuates itself into
>>>    an active-active edge group can disrupt end station traffic flowing
>>>    into or out of that group. For example, if there are N RBridges in
>>>    the group, it could typically control 1/Nth of the traffic flowing
>>>    out of that group and a similar amount of unicast traffic flowing
>>>    into that group.  For multi-destination traffice flowing into that
>>>    group, it could control all that was in a VLAN for which it was DF
>>>    and it can exercise substantial control over the DF election by
>>>    changing its own System ID.
>>>
>>>    For general TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325].
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donald
>>> =============================
>>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>  [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Stephen Farrell
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname-06: Discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have two questions where it's not clear to me if this
>>>>> specification does or does not introduce new vulnerabilities.
>>>>> It could well be that it does not and these are handled
>>>>> elsewhere, but I'm not sure so...
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) How is authorization for being a member of an RBv handled?
>>>>
>>>> Currently I think that this is out of scope because the active-active
>>>> edge groups, each of which is represented by an RBv, are proprietary
>>>> MC-LAG implementations with proprietary management. (See bottom of
>>>> page 5 of RFC 7379. This draft is standardizing a TRILL campus facing
>>>> interface for an AAE group.)
>>>>
>>>>> (2) If a rogue RB can add itself to an RBv can it arrange
>>>>> things so the rogue RB becomes the DF for the RBv?  (If so,
>>>>> that would seem to create new DoS opportunities at least.)
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any problem in mentioning this in the Security Considerations.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Donald
>>>> =============================
>>>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>>>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>>  [e-mail]
>