On 2011-02-04 14:36, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Jarno Rajahalme <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>> ISSUE 5. Section 2 says:
>>>
>>> IPv6 nodes MUST NOT assume that the Flow Label value in a incoming
>>> packet is identical to the value set by the source node.
>>>
>>> QUESTION: This needs to be reconciled with the security usage mentioned in
>>> draft-gont-. Would SHOULD NOT be acceptable?
>
> IMO, "MUST NOT" is the wrong word.
>
> What we want to say here is that it is possible for intruders, Bad
> Guys, and broken implementations to produce packets in which the Flow
> Label is not identical to its original value. Implementations MUST
> (SHOULD?) take necessary steps to protect themselves from being
> vulnerable to DOS and other types of attack that could result.
>
> Or something like that.
>
> I.e., give the implementor some practice advice, rather than making
> this a protocol requirement.
>
> And if we have some examples of the kinds of bad things that an
> implementation should look out for, list a few of them.
OK, something like
Although the flow label is defined as immutable once it has
been set to a non-zero value, implementers should be aware
that it is an unprotected field that could have been accidentally
or intentionally changed en route. Implementations MUST
take appropriate steps to protect themselves from being
vulnerable to denial of service and other types of attack that
could result.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
