IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mpetach@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564881A0666 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 MIclIcRpAAMV for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22e.google.com (mail-ve0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEDB1A01FB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id oz11so7709415veb.5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pfLiUsyFwIylsgmgiGFFJKSuP6aO77pQkE3tSuBTNtE=; b=nwcjucsHZpRBSLruaO91KG09prQ+lz2YjgzagUqvr6J6WyEzl+Hg8YAAzc/RlpV+8j sMemab9ZIv3/wcm4MXvE2t8qJAu86oJeOwC7wIbvoxKw6zG8zBEQt1oK1UVS3bI7n8xJ o08cfSz05Qwp5reve1m+NhElGHgVQNgxPVrS2N/HBg6OfiWRBfkNZPbj/ANMdOHeOGlK fu52WALuF+4LFSC0OCtyHMvN62e05/tJAmMF/TgL64ebeIrREHbteejVJ/N2EYRZ55Ym apT097Qp5MKDq38jZjQdw3GJSGDj6QdsGrdkiEAEUCozpCsC/qQ/dtPGpIxagST9cqK2 eFQg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.221.4.66 with SMTP id ob2mr2254935vcb.28.1397497533142; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mpetach@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.173.193 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534C1A41.1050505@foobar.org>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <534BFA08.3030404@foobar.org> <49EA8AC9-D5C5-4FE5-9A10-0CD574782F0F@nominum.com> <534C07FC.8000907@foobar.org> <F08AF14D-22C6-4F4C-9388-670EB4CD8453@nominum.com> <F2A0EC2F-6B41-4560-88BA-CEBF3E921B61@delong.com> <CAEmG1=oK8iHAms2_uVBsCtpCG7xBdhRfh9QQrd+JXUXgjBPqPA@mail.gmail.com> <534C1A41.1050505@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:45:33 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cwdT7MW0pyBekv5uWtuAZWinrBs
Message-ID: <CAEmG1=qjev-Fkt4tpMSwy4xz-4L5CKow6xBCyiRY7sr7BBoQeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0122a924099cc004f7044026"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6GGn8q3MyPyw0oSZF0BmDlUJrsc
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:45:40 -0000

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> On 14/04/2014 18:23, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > (which is to say, the potential for abuse here seems
> > kinda high; are we sure this a good road for us to be
> > traveling down?)
>
> This is no different to any other type of rogue dhcpv4 situation.
>
> Nick
>
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, though; being an ICMP
response, rather than a DHCP response would
mean DHCP snooping wouldn't be sufficient to stop
me from engaging in mischief, where today settings
like DHCP snooping and DHCP guard could prevent
me from acting as a rogue DHCP server?

I suppose if we extend the concept of DHCP snooping
to also include ICMP snooping, that would work.

Thanks!

Matt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email