Tony,
On 02-Apr-23 05:53, Tony Przygienda wrote:
?
I heard the argument that IPv6 address space is large and "easy to carve up to mean
other things" since about as long IPv6 started to gain traction. The wisdom of that
has been thankfully so far questioned. BIER was also approached by people who hoped we
would create a precedent by taking a /8 or /16 or something and use the rest of bits to
stick bitmasks in. Expediency overriding architecture and all that usual jazz ...
I have all kinds of angst about using magic bit patterns in IPv6 addresses to
convey semantics. Addresses are for getting packets from one end to other,
period. However, my main interest is to prevent SRV6 SIDs doing any kind of
damage to the universal deployment of IPv6. From that point of view, a new
Ethertype would be great because it automatically prevents SRV6 SIDs deployment
on the Internet rather than within limited domains.
But that doesn't affect what I said: *deploying* a new Ethertype is much, much
harder than deploying draft-ietf-6man-sids.
Yes, it's easy to "quickly deploy" and taken to the bitter conclusion we'll stop having a decently
economic, secure and debuggable IP forwarding path, instead we end up building IP host address firewall
scanning things into layer 4 to find violations in complex constructs masquerading under addresses and IP
"extension headers" and build lots of "kind of limited but not so limited and kind of
secur'ish domains". Firewalls have their place but routers are not firewalls.
I don't see where layer 4 comes in. SRV6 adds semantics to layer 3. Layer 3
ACLs have existed much longer than firewalls. draft-ietf-6man-sids enables the
non-SRV6 Internet to drop SRV6 SIDs traffic without any kind of DPI, exactly as
a new Ethertype would.
Regards
Brian
-- tony
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:00 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
<mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 01-Apr-23 06:18, Ron Bonica wrote:
> On second thought, if we had the new ethertype, we wouldn’t need the new
/16!
>
> They serve the same function
However, a new special-purpose prefix is rather trivial to deploy compared
with a new Ethertype.
Brian
>
>
Ron
>
> *From:* Ron Bonica
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2023 1:05 PM
> *To:* Krzysztof Szarkowicz <kszarkowicz=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org
<mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.i...@gmail.com
<mailto:kireeti.i...@gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>>; Andrew Alston - IETF
<andrew-ietf=40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org>>; int-a...@ietf.org
<mailto:int-a...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; Dr. Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>
> *Subject:* RE: [spring] [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt
>
> +1
>
> If we allocate a /16 for SRv6 USIDs, as proposed in
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt>
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt>>,
>
> we can allow that prefix only when the new ethertype is used.
>
>
Ron
>
> *From:* spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>
<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>>> *On Behalf Of *Krzysztof
Szarkowicz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 29, 2023 5:30 AM
> *To:* Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.i...@gmail.com <mailto:kireeti.i...@gmail.com>
<mailto:kireeti.i...@gmail.com <mailto:kireeti.i...@gmail.com>>>
> *Cc:* Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk> <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>>>; Andrew Alston - IETF
<andrew-ietf=40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org> <mailto:andrew-ietf <mailto:andrew-ietf>=40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org
<mailto:40liquid.t...@dmarc.ietf.org>>>; int-a...@ietf.org <mailto:int-a...@ietf.org> <mailto:int-a...@ietf.org <mailto:int-a...@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
<mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; Dr. Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
> SRv6 packet might have SRH, but might not have SRH. Especially with
uSID, you can craft a decent SR-TE SRv6 packet without SRH. So I think, Kireetis’
comments should apply to all SRv6 packets (with/without SRH).
>
> —
>
> Krzysztof
>
> On 2023 -Mar-29, at 17:57, Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com> <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> Though I would like to cheer for Kireeti's 2. as well I think the
point of SHOULD is more realistic (for now) as Joel points out ...
>
> As to ethertype, I think grown-ups in the room were since long time
drily observing that a new IP version would have been appropriate after enough
contortions-of-it's-an-IPv6-address-sometimes-and-sometimes-not-and-sometimes-only-1/4
were performed with drafts whose authors' list length sometimes rivaled pages of
content ;-) I think this ship has sailed and that's why after some discussions
with Andrew we went the ether type route as more realistic. Additionally, yes,
lots encaps (not encodings) carrying SRv6 should get new codepoints if we are
really serious about trusted domains here.
>
> And folks who went the MPLS curve know that none of this is new, same curve was walked
roughly (though smoother, no'one was tempted to "hide label stack in extension headers" ;-)
and it would go a long way if deploying secure SRv6 becomes as simple as *not* switching on
"address family srv6" on an interface until needed and then relying on BGP-LU (oops ;-) to
build according lookup FIBs for SRv6 instead of going in direction of routers becoming massive
wildcard matching and routing header processing firewalls ...
>
> --- tony
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:33 PM Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.i...@gmail.com
<mailto:kireeti.i...@gmail.com> <mailto:kireeti.i...@gmail.com
<mailto:kireeti.i...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 11:24, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk
<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk> <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk
<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>>> wrote:
>
> [Spring cc’ed because, well, you know, SR. I wonder whether
6man and 6ops should care as well.]
>
> SPRING cc’ed because, you know, replying to Adrian’s email.
Agree that 6man and 6ops [sh|w]ould be interested.
>
> tl;dr
>
> I think this is a good initiative and worth discussion.
Thanks
>
> for the draft.
>
> Agree. In particular:
>
> 1. There is an acknowledged security problem. Might be worth
summarizing, as it is central to this draft, but an example is in rfc 8402/section
8. Section 3 of this draft (“The SRv6 Security Problem”) doesn’t actually describe
the security problem; Section 5 does, briefly.
>
> 2. The solution (using a new EtherType, SRv6-ET) is a good one.
It’s sad that this wasn’t done from the get-go, as the solution is a bit “evil
bit”-ish. I’d prefer to see ALL SRv6 packets (i.e., those containing SRH) use
SRv6-ET. Boundary routers SHOULD drop packets with SRv6-ET that cross the
boundary in either direction; all routers MUST drop packets with SRH that don’t
have SRv6-ET. Yeah, difficult, but the added security is worth it.
>
> 3. Ease of secure deployment is a major consideration; this
draft is a big step in that direction.
>
> 4. As Adrian said, several nits. Will send separately to
authors.
>
> Kireeti
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GGgCymh1gmvxc7ibG9cWpBOm73ewlZbNJjAA4xw8KNZFBMd9ROvcdT5tCSooD-OCMYFWheicbBfDrzfTkoY7bGn7W65rg0E$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GGgCymh1gmvxc7ibG9cWpBOm73ewlZbNJjAA4xw8KNZFBMd9ROvcdT5tCSooD-OCMYFWheicbBfDrzfTkoY7bGn7W65rg0E$>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> int-a...@ietf.org <mailto:int-a...@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
