Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec

Hi Pasi, 

Thank you for the feedback.  Putting to VRRP list for WG feedback. 

Regards, 
Steve  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pasi Eronen [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:41
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec 
> 
> Discuss:
> I have reviewed draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02. Overall, the 
> document looks good, but I have the following concerns that 
> I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document:
> 
> The security considerations text basically says security 
> doesn't have to be considered here because an attacker can 
> cause havoc with ARP anyway. I don't think this is fully 
> accurate description.  Many networks with untrusted hosts use 
> switch security features that prevent hosts from bringing 
> down the network with spoofed ARP packets (somewhat similar 
> to what SAVI WG is working on). While compromising one of the 
> switches or routers would still cause damage, compromised or 
> malicious ordinary hosts (attached to switch ports where 
> these features are enabled) can't do that much.
> 
> The other reason for removing cryptographic authentication of 
> VRRP messages is said to be misconfigured secrets (which 
> obviously does cause problems -- but on the other hand, this 
> situation should be detected very quickly). If it's indeed 
> the case that cryptographic per-message authentication isn't 
> a good solution to securing VRRP, at the very least the 
> document should discuss other possible mechanisms.
> Perhaps e.g. filtering mechanisms in switches, configured on 
> per-port basis, could provide some protection? Or could this 
> somehow leverage the existing mechanisms for ARP?
> 
> 
> An additional question about Section 7.4: I'm slightly 
> confused by the text here -- does every router create its own 
> link-local address (in which case failover is visible to 
> hosts in this subnet), or do they share the same link-local 
> address? The 1st paragraph says "They MUST NOT use the 
> Virtual Router MAC address to create the Modified EUI-64 
> identifiers", but the 3rd paragraph talks about "using the 
> VRRP MAC in the formation of these link local addresses" -- 
> are these contradicting each other, or am I just 
> misunderstanding how this works?
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp