Re: [v6ops] IPv6 LL-only as WG document - feedback requested

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 06 August 2012 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 4A23521F861E; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 02:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.173
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 C64FxvvADQXS; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 02:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1771121F861D; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 02:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so682168eek.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2LaRKJdTNNVsXpj7M7bVjuOdd9bi09s+FibsRyrlbjQ=; b=PnXkLWkeWW0rYz8e97lsYmNM1etasaluy9AR7ylJlLJxd59oPYK0IORVIeexC+LX3i 6PWl7vSnlS7+0uXC37N/hP1IJkP28Kf78w2eGENyb0W6JNuwtLJ7C9HUgp0m9x8yxGNX kjVlqGKmu69mz2pdMD8++FLnBetEiH3vI8Gk28h15+taxLrBwcGYc4+pRUYNh1NSsfXh aOEYrCVWPRd7pUqn+PqqeuSXDXts1zNTJD9s1CaTUGLLY2MKX/bNSbIP6YnGilUQUOV5 oDE36j7CVDHDDkWUfoaPq5339L/54kjsUB9AERgYqCVWyg1Ks1BJD1/Fl2SaSWTKO/fp 1V/A==
Received: by 10.14.179.71 with SMTP id g47mr12234086eem.21.1344246012266; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-216-73.as13285.net. [2.102.216.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u47sm13583324eeo.9.2012.08.06.02.40.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <501F90F8.1050409@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:40:08 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
References: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B24068549@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> <501F8D5F.5000805@gmail.com> <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B2406858F@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B2406858F@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "opsec-chairs@ietf.org" <opsec-chairs@ietf.org>, "v6ops v6ops WG (v6ops@ietf.org)" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "'draft-behringer-lla-only@tools.ietf.org' (draft-behringer-lla-only@tools.ietf.org)" <draft-behringer-lla-only@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 LL-only as WG document - feedback requested
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: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:40:14 -0000

Hi Gunter,

I have no problem with the passive address idea, but the immediate issue
is that routers must not source ICMP packets that other routers must
discard - hence no LL source addresses.

    Brian

On 06/08/2012 10:36, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
> Answer as individual contributor.
> 
> Fred B. and myself did a draft to exactly address the traceability of interfaces without 
> increasing the attack vector on interfaces: Passive IPv6 addresses
> 
> No new class of addresses at all... no new IANA allocation... just behaviour of the address:
> 
> 1) it is configured as a normal address
> 2) just an extra keyword attached to the address identifying its behavior
> 3) It can only be used as a 'source' address
> 4) if it is used as destination address, then when reaching the router it will be directed to the Null0 interface
> 
> This will help visibility of the trace-route in cases of LL-only...
> 
> G/
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 06 August 2012 11:25
> To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
> Cc: opsec@ietf.org; v6ops v6ops WG (v6ops@ietf.org); opsec-chairs@ietf.org; 'draft-behringer-lla-only@tools.ietf.org' (draft-behringer-lla-only@tools.ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 LL-only as WG document - feedback requested
> 
> Hi,
> 
>>    o  Management plane traffic, such as SSH, Telnet, SNMP, ICMP echo
>>       request ... can be addressed to loopback addresses of routers with
>>       a global scope address.  Router management can also be done over
>>       out-of-band channels.
>>
>>    o  ICMP error message can also be sourced from the global scope
>>       loopback address.
> 
> These statements seem too weak. Using GUAs for ICMP in particular needs to have a normative MUST somewhere (preferably in a BCP). In the context of this Informational draft, the language needs to state a requirement ("must" not "can") even if you don't use RFC 2119 terminology.
> 
> This matters because packets with a LL source address MUST NOT be forwarded, so a router that is misconfigured to send ICMP replies with a LL source address breaks both ping and traceroute.
> 
> I think the rule is that any packet that is *not* sent to a LL address must have a GUA as the source address. That takes care of ICMP, and everything else as well.
> 
> Furthermore, that GUA needs to be associated with a prefix that belongs to the organisation operating the router in question. Otherwise the traceroute results can be very confusing. We discussed that on v6ops back in March.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/08/2012 10:03, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
>> (distributed to OPSEC WG and in cc v6ops)
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> During the OPSEC WG meeting last Wednesday there was consensus to adopt the draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-behringer-lla-only-01 as working group document with Informational status.
>>
>> Please read the draft, and if there is no violent objection on the list, the document will be requested to be submitted as WG document in 7 days.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> G/, KK & Warren
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops