IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 31 October 2019 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55553120026 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.com
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 LClByrAhfpvb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8642D12010D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [199.187.216.130] ([199.187.216.130]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x9VJw0lv030861 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:58:01 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com x9VJw0lv030861
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1572551882; bh=saC4Q0BpqcXCGCNHB/Emuf04EJ4UMap0/BdjVXN876M=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=BMbwZgihQgjMhocEmQ9/fM72XfR7UqX+EUFOb8E8HTgsIbdyv+HTNTPtrLvFtgrS0 52u7kk3vNTmjsUJgV8kvhEsb935XWc2cqPWcR5XSObZc2bSu3sFv7fbtVVCZfPyyAw mNr49ngrq+yQmFOPFC2QFrfvqIz99EJS5r6dD4O8=
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Message-Id: <39E02F6E-10CF-486A-9E4C-DF494E6DCCAA@delong.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8144BBF7-782A-4D8C-9237-36464849A29C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:58:00 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ED3EB4A2-30AE-4A1F-82C2-38E9D3A47AC1@fugue.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <B53CE471-C6E8-4DC1-8A72-C6E23154544F@fugue.com> <325e84aa-1703-e1ce-55a6-8790ceb7aff0@si6networks.com> <4C6471D4-0F5B-49EE-A38A-22AB2B87DA7E@fugue.com> <CE3BC775-8B50-43E6-8145-3CAB60F6AB4E@delong.com> <ED3EB4A2-30AE-4A1F-82C2-38E9D3A47AC1@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/H1qd-nKOcGtKfGjQpUBESukVkGI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 23:17:59 -0000


> On Oct 31, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 31, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
>> RA Guard could be default configured on switches with particular default “plug router in here” (uplink) ports, eliminating the need for an active administrator. This could be a useful specification in the HomeNet documents, perhaps.
> 
> This would be disastrous.   It pretty much makes permissionless networking impossible in exchange for solving a security problem no-one has.
> 
Huh?

How’s that?

If I have two default uplink ports on a switch and the default configuration on the switch is that those are the “router” ports and everything else is treated as a “host” port for RA Guard on by default, how does that render anything “impossible”?

If you don’t want RA Guard, turn it off. It’s just a default setting.

If you want a different RA Guard configuration, the set it as you like.

I’m not proposing hard-coding anything. I’m proposing an RA-Guard friendly set of defaults that actually solve a common security problem in administrator-less networks, whether they’ve suffered from it yet or not.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email