[v6ops] PD to hosts [was: DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion] ]

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 16 November 2015 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 BB1061A6FAC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:03:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <wAmWz63irM7m>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Cc"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 wAmWz63irM7m for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C151A6FBE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:03:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1ZyNBq-0000HnC; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:03:38 +0100
Message-Id: <m1ZyNBq-0000HnC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:03:32 +0100
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hKiLUAvTook8oLWxKwZa-ykA9kk>
Subject: [v6ops] PD to hosts [was: DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion] ]
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: <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: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:03:53 -0000

>This is starting to diverge from the case I originally intended this discussion
> to
>examine. The case I am interested in is as follows:
>
>- Node N receives a /64 prefix delegation for prefix P over interface eth0.
>- N assigns P to the lo interface as a /64 route. This is done to black-hole
>   unused portions of P.
>- N configures address A from prefix P, and assigns it to eth0.
>- N need not perform DAD for A over eth0, because the delegating router
>   has made sure that the routing system will route all packets with a
>   destination address from P to node N, and not to any other node.
>
>In this way, N can function as an ordinary host according to the strong end
>system model even though it acted as a "requesting router" in procuring a
>prefix from the delegating router. No other node X on the same link as
>N can therefore configure an address from P and have the routing system
>return packets to X. In fact, any node X that configures an address from P
>can be considered an "attacker", and the use or non-use of DAD has no
>way of preventing that. In fact, the use of DAD could give X a clue as to
>which addresses from P are ripe for attacking. So, it is in fact better to
>NOT do DAD.

I have a two questions about this, sort of unrelated to DAD (so I changed the
subject).

1) How do packets reach the host. Is that documented somewhere?
   I assume that in this case a router will send packets with destination
   prefix P to the link local address of N. But is that specified somewhere?

2) If a node M on the same ethernet link wants to communicate with address
   A, it creates a destination cache entry for A picking a default router
   as next hop (because P is not onlink). Later, A can send the reply 
   directly to M if M's address is onlink. That is likely to cause a
   neighbor cache entry for A at M, which will not be used because the 
   destination cache entry is still in place.

   Not good if you ever want to debug something.