netdev - Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <32BF466D-E562-480D-8897-63286F90CCC1@lurchi.franken.de>
Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:06:41 +0100
From:	Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@...chi.franken.de>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:	"Vlad Yasevich" <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	"Sun Paul" <paulrbk@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>, "Karl Heiss" <kheiss@...il.com>,
	"Neil Horman" <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP

On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:48 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:

>> The point is that address scoping should be used. When sending an
>> INIT from 10.10.10.1 to 10.10.10.4 you should not list 192.168.1.1,
>> since you are transmitting an address to a node which might or might
>> not "be in the same scope".
> 
> You might have two machines that are connected via the public
> internet and also via a private network.
> The two sets of cabling being completely separate giving you
> resilience to network failure.
> In which case you definitely don't want address scoping.
Well, if you give the SCTP stack a hint when initiating
the association, it can do the right thing.
Calling sctp_connect(private_address) should work. It will list
the public address without any problems.
One can debate that sctp_connectx(private_address, public_address)
will result in sending an INIT to the public_address listing the
private one. However, calling sctp_connect(public_address) should
not list the private_address.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> While you may not want the SCTP traffic on the public network
> itself, it could easily be routed separately.
> 
> We have systems that 'sort of' designate one interface for SIP/RTP
> and the other for 'management'. They might run M3UA/SCTP but no one
> has really thought enough about which interface(s) the M3UA traffic
> should use.
> (Think of an ISUP/SIP gateway using M3UA for ISUP signalling.)
> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html