IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsvwg] SCTP and ICMP Protocol Unreachable

Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@micmac.franken.de> Fri, 22 September 2006 15:23 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQmru-0004Hv-5D; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:23:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQmrs-0004Hi-KR for tsvwg@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:23:08 -0400
Received: from mail-n.franken.de ([193.175.24.27] helo=ilsa.franken.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQmrr-00016F-9W for tsvwg@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:23:08 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (p508FDEF2.dip.t-dialin.net [80.143.222.242]) by ilsa.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BED9245D2; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:23:01 +0200 (CEST) (KNF account authenticated via SMTP-AUTH)
In-Reply-To: <20060922041332.A13611@openss7.org>
References: <20060920094032.GA28221@artesyncp.com> <20060920055135.A30614@openss7.org> <9C48BA4E-7C94-4EF6-B2FD-3AD374552CF3@micmac.franken.de> <20060920120115.A5094@openss7.org> <2FB2577B-5E0D-4565-BD75-C8CFCD924D95@micmac.franken.de> <20060920123634.A6026@openss7.org> <451266D7.9090202@lakerest.net> <20060921132657.GF28221@artesyncp.com> <4512E2ED.8010702@cisco.com> <20060922095157.GC28642@artesyncp.com> <20060922041332.A13611@openss7.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <D49E60BF-BACD-4036-B844-BF56BFE22DEC@micmac.franken.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@micmac.franken.de>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] SCTP and ICMP Protocol Unreachable
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:22:59 +0200
To: bidulock@openss7.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Cc: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com>, sctp-impl@external.cisco.com, sctp-impl@cisco.com, IETF Transport Area Mailing List <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Brian,

yes, you are correct. That is my point.

Best regards
Michael

On Sep 22, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

> Stephane,
>
> Stephane Chazelas wrote:        (Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:51:57)
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg- 
>> sctpthreat-01.txt
>>
>> 5) is taken care of by the change to the RFC that every address
>> must be confirmed first. So that only heartbeats are sent to the
>> victims
>
> Well, no.  That was Michael's point (I believe): if you only mark the
> destination unusable you will be sending another nonce-HB to the next
> destination soon.  If you aborted the association in response to the
> ICMP, only one nonce-HB would be sent.  Thus you reintroduce the
> amplification if you mark destinations or ignore ICMP.
>
> --brian
>
> -- 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email