Dear all, The IPv4 predictable Identification issue is being well discussed and emphasized. This work forces on the IPv6 fragment header predictable identification issue and tries to protect such vulnerable implementations from being suffered from DoS attack, by providing several possible and practicable algorithm to generate random id. From the perspective of implementation, such as NAT, etc., which might aggravate the issue being told, such work is instructive.
Besides, the author added a survey in the latest version which addressed some of the former comments. I technically support this draft. Thank you, Tina > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole > Troan > Sent: 2013年2月28日 11:52 > To: ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg > Subject: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id > > Hi, > > The draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id document has been discussed a > few times. > At the IETF84 (minutes attached below), and in the thread: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg15836.html > > Could we get the working groups opinion on what to do with the document? > > - Is there interest in working on it in 6man? > (if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why) > > Best regards, > Ole & Bob > > > > IETF84 minutes: > ============ > Fernando Gont presented the draft about Security Implications of Predictable > Fragment Identification Values, > (draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id-02.txt) > > Ole Troan wanted to make this document more generic and discuss the > implications of using predictable values in Internet protocols. Fernando > > Bob Hinden wanted to see a longer list of OSs. He was also curious as to > whether this was problem that needed to be fixed in IETF or was this already > common knowledge. > > Erik Kline wanted to know if there was an IAB document that recommended the > use of non-predictable values if there was an integer field that did not > need specific values. > > Thomas Narten was not sure what to do with this. This fell under the > category of "don't do anything stupid". e.g. Why do a document for > IPv6 for things that were well known in IPv4? > > Lorenzo Colitti thought that this work was not harmful and should be pursued > irrespective of any iab work. > > Brian Haberman did not want to have a point solution for every field and he > would like to see a more general document applicable across the IETF. > Fernando was concerned on whether implementers would read this generic > document. Brian believed that this generic document could be referred to in > the node requirements document, thus ensuring that IPv6 implementers would > read it. > > Joel Jaeggli thought that it was a worthwhile activity to look at existing > implementations and flag this as a potential issue that was common across > multiple implementations. Thomas Narten and Erik Kline agreed with Joel. > > Dave mentioned that RFC4732 (Internet DOS considerations) talked about using > unpredictable values for session ids. Fernando talked about other issues > discovered after 4732 that still had this issue. Dave believed that this > sort of work needs to be done by the saag and if this was included in a > statement from saag as something to look for in SecDir reviews, it would > have the largest impact. > > Chairs wanted to continue discussion on mailing list and requested Fernando > to discuss potential changes with Joel J. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
