Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG
<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Wed, 08 January 2014 20:59 UTC
Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E4B1AE19F; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:59:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 DfNcPG_8kwJ3; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta14.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta14.messagelabs.com [193.109.254.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603861AE100; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [193.109.255.147:15484] by server-11.bemta-14.messagelabs.com id A6/64-20576-41CBDC25; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:59:00 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-72.messagelabs.com!1389214739!13084435!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.43]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.16; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 5931 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2014 20:59:00 -0000
Received: from exht022p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.43) by server-15.tower-72.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Jan 2014 20:59:00 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.204]) by EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.43]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:58:03 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:58:01 +0000
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG
Thread-Index: Ac8McOrPAmy3B+wRTqai/gWVt+nHRAAPUE6Y
Message-ID: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346AC@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <20140107202040.22438.54920.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346AB@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>, <9e9147aa7183c016db4888691f1ef46d.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <9e9147aa7183c016db4888691f1ef46d.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: lisp@ietf.org, jnc@mit.edu, tsvwg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:59:13 -0000
Zero UDP checksums are being selected for convenience, without an appreciation of the overall effects and costs on other traffic. I see this is occurring in both tsvwg and lisp, and it's probably happening elsewhere: >From the recently adopted by tsvwg draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-02 To simplify packet processing at the tunnel egress, packets destined to this assigned UDP destination port [TBD] SHOULD have their UDP checksum and Sequence flags set to zero because the egress tunnel only needs to identify this protocol. Although IPv6 [RFC2460] restricts the processing a packet with the UDP checksum of zero, [RFC6935] and [RFC6936] relax this constraint to allow the zero UDP checksum. from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-03 The UDP checksum is zero because the inner packet usually already has a end-end checksum, and the outer checksum adds no value. [Saltzer] (That's a misreading of Saltzer - the UDP checksum is also protecting against misdelivery and pseudoheader corruption, and 'usually' is not a good defence. For shame, Noel.) After all, the best examples of end2end systems failure are with zero checksums at the endhosts. The TCP and UDP checksums catch significant numbers of errors, e.g. Stone's work: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2000/conf/paper/sigcomm2000-9-1.pdf and some of those errors will appear in the headers, where they will send the data to other ports and destinations. The potential for polluting other ports and applications because there is no pseudoheader demultiplexing sanity check is there. IPv6 leaving this check implemented on a per-transport basis has opened the door, and rewriting that section of RFC2460 in RFC6935 has taken the door off its hinges. These RFCs break the minimal multiplexing pseudoheader sanity check that RFC2460 offered; IPv6 is a mess in so many ways, but making it worse? I think publishing RFC6935 and 6936 and letting in zero checksums again to IPv6 was a mistake, frankly. (alas, I wasn't paying much attention at the time - moving countries etc.) A strong recommendation that UDP-Lite covering headers offers minimal computation overhead on tunnelled packets while protecting against polluting other ports is one solution, while acknowledging deployment limitations. Section 2.4 of RFC696 is mostly there. But zero UDP checksums should always come with copious warnings on the effects not on the carried traffic, which can have its own payload checks, but on traffic sharing the network with traffic delivered with zero UDP checksums. Drafts relying on zero checksums should be discouraged, not adopted by workgroups. It's a tragedy of the commons, but the I'm-alright-Jack engineers who want zero udp checksums for their traffic, and do protect against the effects of zero checksums on their own payloads, won't care about effects on other traffic. Hey, maybe this should be treated as an attack, which falls under perpass? That should get it attention... tsvwg needs to give (or get) some careful input on the implications here. Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk [gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk] Sent: 08 January 2014 12:55 To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG Lloyd, Here is a little context... which could help. The IETF agreed to update the UDP checksum behaviour for IPv6 in RFC 6935, but only subject to the applicability specified in RFC 6936. One of the reasons why a simple encapsulation like this needs to be done in tsvwg is to minimise the end-to-end implications on other traffic. Sure, using a zero checksum has such implications, and my own first concern is that the new GRE-in-UDP work follows the applicability statement in RFC 6936. To me, it seems the authors are heading this way - but maybe more help is needed. It would be no bad thing to highlight the implications of using zero checksums on other traffic. Gorry > Am I the only one who finds putting zero checksums in proposed standards > to be a worrying > trend? > > Lloyd Wood > http://about.me/lloydwood > ________________________________________ > From: tsvwg [tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat > [ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org] > Sent: 07 January 2014 20:20 > To: tsvwg@ietf.org > Subject: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG > > Added milestone "Submit 'Specification of GRE in UDP encapsulation' to > IESG as a PS RFC", due December 2014. > > URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/charter/ >
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG Black, David
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG gorry
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG gorry
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG l.wood
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG l.wood
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG l.wood
- Re: [tsvwg] [lisp] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [tsvwg] [lisp] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG l.wood
- Re: [tsvwg] [lisp] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG Dino Farinacci
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG Noel Chiappa
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG Noel Chiappa
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG Black, David
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat
- Re: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG Black, David
- [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG IETF Secretariat