IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A good example of why we need to careful about ULAs

Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> Sat, 01 June 2013 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <arturo.servin@gmail.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 2CD7E21F99FC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQuAB6Vd2kgt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A153B21F9996 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id id13so1733096vcb.37 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uRQpT6GLMvEggiz3Yd6h7GmylWn12PDCQ73VuySWKIQ=; b=vPDQDia+LL4eI2XQKm0BJP0XSsbryuLalXS9URwnVc+oTlIjlB+rXIO2jQZtAHg0TJ 1u6z8Vx16xNDsZ6jhFEz4kZJwEziZ8tJAwLKXFha8A0RVKgqFAH9ZpkwFLTEYWor4U7U /kDzpumfu1x8yKS9n+IX0+fyK8vsrRDhhQMQq5J9HHD9DP+O11lXPUZNt/8aqxlfKzW1 Tyw/rRQKieqCgnX0Oqs4jodfHPvitpkYYmDpuL9YNFP+S4f4hJooBQaTe4/+6Mz10+kD KMZbU4NyYRCPdZJnKKg/FWI6xIDdZ11jJ/8a2JFqwH4dmB2UuZHpOgqKZukzvXIYloVr M1zQ==
X-Received: by 10.220.200.200 with SMTP id ex8mr14354813vcb.43.1370096662072; Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Arturos-MacBook-Pro.local ([2800:af:ba30:ea19:552b:732d:15e4:51e4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s9sm39217737vdh.4.2013.06.01.07.24.19 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51AA041E.1010109@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:24:30 -0300
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr29kf1Me=6JR66Gq0dFYgQx2wq=pjW8WZyHByPA0POsMQ@mail.gmail.com> <1369901467.70362.YahooMailNeo@web142506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <51A7C86B.3020808@gmail.com> <BCEC2341-CF91-4184-B14A-FE0BE683F89F@delong.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751BFE04@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <4CB10EDC-1E2B-4423-AD77-7B6062F80579@delong.com> <51A97375.1090402@gmail.com> <51A97918.9070404@massar.ch> <90D50EC6-D510-4A3B-B33A-32135462A233@delong.com> <51A97D9D.5010003@massar.ch> <BCB87E02-000C-47C2-BB30-2FF2D23359DB@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BCB87E02-000C-47C2-BB30-2FF2D23359DB@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A good example of why we need to careful about ULAs
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:24:28 -0000

	And Jeroen are that if this happen you have a broken router (as you
mentioned) and a possible leakage of traffic due to not applying BCP38.

	Both are bad, I think we all agree on that.

.as

On 6/1/13 3:05 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> My point is that link local packets shouldn't even get far enough for BCP38 to matter. Every router is required to not forward then no matter what. If the packet gets far enough into the forwarding process for your BCP38 filters to matter, then you need a software update for the router. 
> 
> Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email