Predictable IP protocol values

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 27 April 2012 08:21 UTC

Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Subject: Predictable IP protocol values
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F99B5C8.1010108@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:21:47 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5E6FD71A-0A84-4B20-AF5A-16DCBCD7ED76@employees.org>
References: <401EA98A-C229-4ED3-8CBE-3C6CAE5D37B7@gmail.com> <4F87BBD6.8090809@si6networks.com> <5858DFD5-7A62-478E-8F13-B62CB02D3EE7@employees.org> <4F99B5C8.1010108@si6networks.com>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Precedence: list

working group,

[changed subject]

in the context of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id-02
any opinion on how to proceed?

- document covering predictable values in IETF protocols in general
- document predictable IP ID fields in both IPv4 and IPv6
- fix the predictable fragment ID problem in IPv6
- do nothing?

cheers,
Ole


On Apr 26, 2012, at 22:53 , Fernando Gont wrote:

> Hi, Ole,
> 
> On 04/26/2012 08:50 AM, Ole Trøan wrote:
>>> I think that draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id is also ready 
>>> for wg call for adoption as wg document -- I've rev'ed the
>>> document since IETF 83 in response to the feedback received during
>>> my presentation (i.e., just require the Frag ID to be
>>> unpredictable, without mandating any particular algorithm).
>> 
>> the chairs have an action item on taking this to the mailing list. 
>> there was an issue that I believe Bob raised, if we were going to 
>> have publish RFCs on every field in TCP/IP protocols that should
>> have unpredictable values, or if we should have a generic
>> recommendation applying to protocol design in general.
> 
> I believe that a generic document about protocol design that discusses
> this issue would be valuable, such that *new* protocols and protocol
> implementations do not incur into this problem. However, in this
> particular case (Fragment ID), the IPv6 standard itself is suggesting
> to use a counter, and hence the spec should be fixed.
> 
> That aside, different fields have different requirements. For example,
> the constraints for randomizing the transport protocol ports are
> different from those of producing unpredictable IDs, and different from
> those of say, randomizing the TCP sequence numbers, or randomizing the
> IPv6 Flow Label. The consequences of the particular approach that you
> follow vary quite a bit in each case.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
>

6MAN Minutes, Actions, and Document Status Bob Hinden
Re: 6MAN Minutes, Actions, and Document Status Fernando Gont
Re: 6MAN Minutes, Actions, and Document Status Ole Trøan
Re: 6MAN Minutes, Actions, and Document Status Fernando Gont
Predictable IP protocol values Ole Trøan
Re: Predictable IP protocol values Fernando Gont
Re: Predictable IP protocol values Joel M. Halpern
Re: Predictable IP protocol values Fernando Gont