[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-icmpv6-filtering-recs to informational



[Having returned from holiday..]

Note: We are talking about draft-v6ops-icmpv6-filtering-recs-01.


Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 13-jun-2006, at 21:52, Fred Baker wrote:

The real value in this document, besides suggesting appropriate firewall configurations, is in the lines of reasoning presented for the configuration elements. For example, a router solicitation by definition travels from a host seeking a first hop router to a system that it is directly connected to at a lower layer such as a wired or wireless Ethernet. The document recommends that this class of message never be forwarded, and one in fact hopes that not only would it not be forwarded, but that the originator would set TTL=1 to prevent the occurrence even if the router were misconfigured.

RFC 2461:

6.1.1.  Validation of Router Solicitation Messages

   Hosts MUST silently discard any received Router Solicitation
   Messages.

   A router MUST silently discard any received Router Solicitation
   messages that do not satisfy all of the following validity checks:

      - The IP Hop Limit field has a value of 255, i.e., the packet
        could not possibly have been forwarded by a router.

Although the document mentions using the hop limit at 255 as a security feature, I think this could be more prominent, as it may give people a reason to forego some or even all ICMPv6 filtering.

As such, the document collects a fair bit of wisdom from which the unschooled can learn.

You're making me bite my tongue here, Fred...
The draft itself is quite clear and accurate about the hop limit field in Router Solicitations (s 4.2.3 notes they must be received with hop limit = 255). Fred's gloss needs to be corrected - a different example in the proto questionnaire would be better!

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

This document has been through working group review since its introduction about a year ago. This version responds to comments presented during working group last call in May 2006. I believe that it has had adequate review.

Please have the use of "hop count" changed to "hop limit" in the document to reflect the actual name of the field.

This was corrected in the changes from -00 to -01.

Regards,
Elwyn