On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > We've just had a long discussion with Denis on IRC. Here's a summary. > > Short summary: this is very impressive work, and I'm very grateful to be > able to accept that as an experimental extension to the Babel protocol > (which is itself experimental). TLV types 11 and 12 are hereby assigned > to this extension. > > Long version. I still prefer a trailer-based approach, which allows > validating a packet with no knowledge of the packet's structure. > However, Denis' has taken care to mitigate the flaws of a TLV-based > approach (notably by having an "obviously correct" packet validation > function run before any parsing is attempted), he is strongly in favour > of a TLV-based approach, and has a lot of experience with security > features in routing protocols. I yield to his superior experience. > > The design of TLV 11 (cryptographic timestamp) is excellent. I am fully > confident that it can be reused by a trailer-based extension. > > I am slightly less confident about TLV 12 (digest); in particular, I am > not sure that it is necessary to have an explicit field for the > key-id -- I'd simply make the whole body opaque. However, I don't see > anything actually wrong with the current definition. > > I very much like the way of avoiding a pseudo-header in digest > computation (by overwriting the digest with the packet's source > address). > > The writeup needs some editing, but nothing serious. In particular, > it's not clear how to deal with IPv4 source addresses (not an issue for > the current implementation, which only runs over v6). > > Commit f2fdcb0 ("babeld: focus Rx packet structure/sizing checks") is > great, I intend to pull it into standalone babeld (with Denis' > permission). babel_packet_examin I'll rename -- suggestions? (I > suggest babel_packet_validate.) > > Commit 797213b ("babeld: improve Rx check for fixed-size TLVs") is > wrong. See RFC 6126 Section 4.3, which allows sub-TLVs to be included > into any TLV. Please revert. > > Nothing to say about commit b256107. > > Commit c9d6a7f is the big one. I haven't fully reviewed it yet, but > here's a few things I notice. > > We're going to break if the interface has multiple link-local addresses. > Not a big deal -- I don't think we're dealing with that edge-case in the > first place. Fixing that would require a bunch of system calls for each > packet, probably not worth it. > > babel_auth_got_source_address should probably fail if there's no > link-local address rather than returning a non-local one. > > Unless I'm missing something, in babel_auth_make_packet there's an > obsolete comment (FIXME: write source address). > > That's all for now. Denis, please feel free to merge your code into the > trunk and document it, any further nits can be corrected there. > > -- Juliusz
Will this be going int the babeld mainline branch or only in the quagga derived branch.... > > _______________________________________________ > Babel-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
