Donald,
Thanks for the review, I plan to do another update in the next few days,
I'm just waiting to see if any further feedback arrives.
A couple of specific comments:
re - squat space. The intent was not to make recommendations on the
practice, just to document the effects.
re - 5. Unexpected interactions with some NAT implementations: What you
say is exactly what I intended to illustrate. I will update the wording
so its clear I'm not talking about a routing loop.
Regards
Tony K
On 9/06/12 7:17 AM, Smith, Donald wrote:
There is a mention of "squat" space that doesn't make any recommendations as to
use or not.
I can understand not expressing an opinion on the rfc1918/private space
shouldn't this state that squating is bad?
"This effect in itself is often not a problem. However, if anti-
spoofing controls are applied at network perimeters, then responses
returned from hops with private IP addresses will be dropped."
Any rfc1918 filtering mechinisim will cause this issue not just bcp38 type
anti-spoofing.
Firewalls, junipers and many platforms drop rfc1918 space but not as part of
bcp38 .
BTW BCP84 ala rfc3704 is an update/addition to bcp38 you should probably add
them to this reference.
And for consistecy I recommend using an expression such as "any rfc1918 or bogon
filtering..."
Under section 4 the author says urpf or ingress filtering.
"If the router's interface address is a
private IP address, then this ICMP reply packet may be discarded due
to uRPF or ingress filtering, thereby causing the PMTUD mechanism to
fail."
Under
5. Unexpected interactions with some NAT implementations
The first section works. As stated it might confuse someone but honestly unless
the 4th hop also matches the 2 hop it doesn't look like a routing loop to me.
It looks like rfc1918 reuse.
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 198.51.100.100
1 10.1.1.2 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
2 198.51.100.13 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec
3 10.1.1.2 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec<<<<
4 198.51.100.5 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec
5 198.51.100.1 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
Section 6 references rfc2827 should probably include bcp84 and rfc3704.
Your first example of a security gap is really a no worse if you use private or
public addresss but you call that out so I am ok with it.
NIT
This:
Some applications discover the outside address of
their local CPE to determine if that address is reserver for special
use.
Should be this:
Some applications discover the outside address of
their local CPE to determine if that address is reserved for special
use.
When packets collide the controllers cease transmission AND wait a random time
before retransmission (mostly)!
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
t.petch
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:06 AM
To: Christopher Morrow; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores
I would like to see this published as an RFC.
The only discussion I see whether or not the title of 12.2 should have
an initial capital - I think that it should.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Morrow"<[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]>;<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:41 PM
Folks,
There's been work on the draft:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores>
I think the commenters' comments were addressed by the authors.
Can we move this to WGLC now and clear that 6/19/2012 (June 19,
2012).
Abstract of the draft:
"The purpose of this document is to provide a discussion of the
potential problems of using private, RFC1918, or non-globally-
routable addressing within the core of an SP network. The
discussion
focuses on link addresses and to a small extent loopback
addresses.
While many of the issues are well recognised within the ISP
community, there appears to be no document that collectively
describes the issues."
Could there be some discussion on WGLC and we'll see about moving
this along to the IESG?
-chris
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential
or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
--
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
