Re: [v6ops] RFC6459 "IPv6 in 3GPP" - the IID in the LL address

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Mon, 10 July 2017 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 272091289B0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 ncsJ45uevrFO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2161A131834 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749C641BF3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5025841BD6; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 41A39759AD; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:59:42 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170710175942.GW45648@Space.Net>
References: <937f22f6-e4b7-b398-9df9-79c36ea2d7ee@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A002E21@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <a67eb7d0-be6a-f158-b05c-fda0f38e09d6@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A002EF9@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1be23f5b-f449-9924-8322-f21c4ccbd09e@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A002F95@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <2c325097-651e-501c-747a-e7a322c3d844@gmail.com> <20170710170911.GU45648@Space.Net> <722c7c25-46f1-53c3-78a3-39600a60d880@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="o03slR/1rgEAVnD3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <722c7c25-46f1-53c3-78a3-39600a60d880@gmail.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pieGy3WdEIAKr7Zbekpi3X9rQVI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC6459 "IPv6 in 3GPP" - the IID in the LL address
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 10 Jul 2017 17:59:48 -0000

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 07:53:52PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> > [..]
> >> Some packets with LLs as src have been witnessed in the Internet at large.
> > 
> > This is a bug in all the forwarding entities on the path and needs to be
> > fixed.
> 
> That is your oppinion.

It's clear violation of internet standards that say "such packets MUST NOT
be forwarded", so what else can it be but "a bug"?

> There should be nothing wrong in sending packets to the Internet. 
> Forwarding is based on the dst address.

Please do less thinking, and more reading of standards.

We've been here before.

[..]
> >> Some times some UE apps may put a link-local address in
> >> application-layer payloads.  Some protocols do it too (e.g. OSPF puts
> >> LLs in LSAs, DHCP puts interface IDs and LLs in payloads, etc).
> > 
> > This would be a bug in the application, which would need to be fixed.
> 
> Well - I think you dont understand.

Yeah.

> Speaking only for DHCP here:
> 
> DHCP carries interface IDs in UDP payloads.  They're called "Link-layer 
> address" 48bit, in Client Identifier, as an UDP payload in DHCPv6 
> Solicit, by the User Terminal.

That is not a protocol commonly routed across the internet, so it is of
total irrelevance in this context (and, using MAC address as client 
identifier is strictly optional in DHCPv6, unlike IPv4)

> If the Server is in the operator's network, then one could think that 
> there is no more tracking danger than without DHCP.  But if the Server 
> and intermediary routers are outside the operator's network then there's 
> real risk of tracking.

How many networks do you know that route DHCPv6 requests about arbitrary
third party infrastructure?

> One could not fix the DHCP protocol to eliminate that Client identifier, 
> because if so then DHCP will no longer work.

Less thinking, more reading.  DHCPv6 initially was specified based on
DUIDs, and *not* MAC addresses.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279