matt.rice at comcast
Aug 10, 2008, 9:06 PM
Post #2 of 17
(597 views)
Permalink
|
I am not sure about the loop, but wouldn't a static or default static route
specifying an outbound interface rather than a next hop router ip address on
a multi-access network like Ethernet, frame-relay or ATM with connections to
5 or more routers cause one router to output a stream of packets to a subnet
and all five or more receiving routers receiving the packets possibly
forwarding them separately causing the duplicate packets?
Just a thought,
Matt Rice
Seattle
----- Original Message -----
From: <nanog-request [at] nanog>
To: <nanog [at] nanog>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 8:21 PM
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 7, Issue 26
> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
> nanog [at] nanog
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> nanog-request [at] nanog
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> nanog-owner [at] nanog
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know.... (Chris Paul)
> 2. Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know.... (Chris Paul)
> 3. Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know.... (Cat Okita)
> 4. Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know.... (Joe Greco)
> 5. impossible circuit (Jon Lewis)
> 6. Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know.... (William Herrin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:27:29 -0700
> From: Chris Paul <chris.paul [at] rexconsulting>
> Subject: Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know....
> To: nanog [at] nanog
> Message-ID: <489F9581.4010801 [at] rexconsulting>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Joe Greco wrote:
>>>> Pretending for a moment that it was even possible to make such large
>>>> scale changes and get them pushed into a large enough number of clients
>>>> to matter, you're talking about meltdown at the recurser level, because
>>>> it isn't just one connection per _computer_, but one connection per
>>>> _resolver stub_ per _computer_ (which, on a UNIX machine, would tend to
>>>> gravitate towards one connection per process), and this just turns into
>>>> an insane number of sockets you have to manage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Couldn't the resolver libraries be changed to not use multiple
>>> connections?
>>>
>>
>> I think that the text I wrote clearly assumes that there IS only one
>> connection per resolver instance. The problem is that hostname to IP
>> lookup is pervasive in a modern UNIX system, and is probably pretty
>> common on other platforms, too, so you have potentially hundreds or
>> thousands of processes, each eating up additional system file descriptors
>> for this purpose.
>
> Well how I read what you first wrote implied that the resolvers are now
> going to DOS servers with millions of connections due to each resolver
> stub making a TCP connection... I say this is something that if true,
> can and should be changed.
>
> Now you say that file descriptors on the client are going to run out
> Isn't that changing the topic? And is that even really a problem?
>
> So each process that needs to do a lookup opens a file descriptor for a
> TCP connection, right? Whereas with UDP we don't have to do this. Is
> this what I'm hearing you say? That I understand. (Hmm don't udp
> connections take sockets too? Not sarcastic here.. just asking...)
>
> And it is a good point but is this client file descriptor an
> insurmountable problem? Also, what about the millions of connections to
> the server? Is that really necessary for a dns resolver on one system to
> open more than one TCP connection to its caching dns server?
>
> I'm not saying that caching dns servers should keep open TCP connections
> to authoritative name servers! OK? But how much latency do you increase
> e on that uncached recursive lookup by changing to TCP?
>
> CP
>
> --
> Chris Paul
> Rex Consulting, Inc
> email: chris.paul [at] rexconsulting
> phone, direct: +1, 831.706.4211
> phone, toll-free: +1, 888.403.8996
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,
> or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
> Rex Consulting, Inc. is a California Corporation.
>
> P Please don't print this e-mail, unless you really need to.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:29:00 -0700
> From: Chris Paul <chris.paul [at] rexconsulting>
> Subject: Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know....
> To: nanog [at] merit
> Message-ID: <489F95DC.4010403 [at] rexconsulting>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Victor Jerlin wrote:
>>>>
>>> Couldn't the resolver libraries be changed to not use multiple
>>> connections?
>>
>> And we'll change to IPv6 tomorrow!
> Total apples and oranges. We all have to patch anyhow. This is just code
> and firewall rules. IPv6 is way more complicated, friend.
>
>
> --
> Chris Paul
> Rex Consulting, Inc
> email: chris.paul [at] rexconsulting
> phone, direct: +1, 831.706.4211
> phone, toll-free: +1, 888.403.8996
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,
> or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
> Rex Consulting, Inc. is a California Corporation.
>
> P Please don't print this e-mail, unless you really need to.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Cat Okita <cat [at] reptiles>
> Subject: Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know....
> To: Chris Paul <chris.paul [at] rexconsulting>
> Cc: nanog [at] merit
> Message-ID: <20080810213344.D15677 [at] gecko>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Chris Paul wrote:
>>> And we'll change to IPv6 tomorrow!
>> Total apples and oranges. We all have to patch anyhow. This is just code
>> and
>> firewall rules. IPv6 is way more complicated, friend.
>
> No - IPv6 is just code (and not even firewall rules).
>
> cheers!
> ==========================================================================
> "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
> desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
> avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:35:58 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Joe Greco <jgreco [at] ns>
> Subject: Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know....
> To: chris.paul [at] rexconsulting (Chris Paul)
> Cc: nanog [at] nanog
> Message-ID: <200808110235.m7B2Zwxn028353 [at] aurora>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>> > I think that the text I wrote clearly assumes that there IS only one
>> > connection per resolver instance. The problem is that hostname to IP
>> > lookup is pervasive in a modern UNIX system, and is probably pretty
>> > common on other platforms, too, so you have potentially hundreds or
>> > thousands of processes, each eating up additional system file
>> > descriptors
>> > for this purpose.
>>
>> Well how I read what you first wrote implied that the resolvers are now
>> going to DOS servers with millions of connections due to each resolver
>> stub making a TCP connection... I say this is something that if true,
>> can and should be changed.
>
> Sure. We can introduce a new feature, called a "local recurser," which
> will do unified name resolution for all lookups asked for by any process
> on the box.
>
> Now, of course, the box enjoys certain benefits, such as being able to
> remember who "MX nanog.org" is for the second time without having to
> bother an external recurser. And a hypothetical ability to forward all
> requests via TCP to the external recurser. Except, why bother, now that
> you have the capability right on the box, why be dependent on anything
> else? Might as well just let it resolve all by itself.
>
> Of course, the box also enjoys certain other liabilities, such as the
> next time that all the name servers in the world need to be upgraded,
> you now have just that many more recursers that are running on unattended
> autopilot (because heaven knows, most PC's run without a professional
> admin to keep things up to snuff, and this last problem wasn't exactly
> the sort of thing you can just "auto update," because someone actually
> has to verify that there aren't externalities such as NAT devices, etc!)
>
> Sounds like a real fun time.
>
>> Now you say that file descriptors on the client are going to run out
>> Isn't that changing the topic? And is that even really a problem?
>
> Actually, it's quite a problem, for the server. Try, sometime, having a
> few thousand file descriptors all open, and then running select() on that
> fdset. But it's not even really that pleasant on many clients. It's a
> kernel consumable. You try to avoid introducing additional requirements
> without a good reason.
>
>> So each process that needs to do a lookup opens a file descriptor for a
>> TCP connection, right? Whereas with UDP we don't have to do this. Is
>> this what I'm hearing you say? That I understand. (Hmm don't udp
>> connections take sockets too? Not sarcastic here.. just asking...)
>
> You open and then close it for UDP. You can do that for TCP, too, at a
> substantial penalty.
>
>> And it is a good point but is this client file descriptor an
>> insurmountable problem? Also, what about the millions of connections to
>> the server? Is that really necessary for a dns resolver on one system to
>> open more than one TCP connection to its caching dns server?
>
> There is no "DNS resolver on one system" unless you put one there. At
> which point, you can safely ask the question of why would you then connect
> to a caching server (there are good reasons, in some cases).
>
> The way libresolv works is that it takes those "nameserver" things listed
> in resolv.conf and sends requests to them. Since any program that uses
> the network is likely to be linked to libresolv, you can have lots of
> different programs on a system, each of which may want to resolve
> different name resources. There is no monolithic "thing" on a box to do
> name resolution unless you put one there.
>
>> I'm not saying that caching dns servers should keep open TCP connections
>> to authoritative name servers! OK? But how much latency do you increase
>> e on that uncached recursive lookup by changing to TCP?
>
> Since latency would not be extremely high on my list of concerns with this
> plan, I'll pass and say "I don't really care to speculate." There are
> many
> other ways you'll have lit your hair on fire before latency is a big
> concern.
>
> ... JG
> --
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and]
> then I
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail
> spam(CNN)
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many
> apples.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jon Lewis <jlewis [at] lewis>
> Subject: impossible circuit
> To: nanog [at] nanog
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0808102146400.5503 [at] soloth>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> After all the messages recently about how to fix DNS, I was seriously
> tempted to title this messsage "And now, for something completely
> different", but impossible circuit is more descriptive.
>
> Before you read further, I need everyone to put on their thinking WAY
> outside the box hats. I've heard from enough people already that I'm nuts
> and what I'm seeing can't happen, so it must not be happening...even
> though we see the results of it happening.
>
> I've got this private line DS3. It connects cisco 7206 routers in
> Orlando (at our data center) and in Ocala (a colo rack in the Embarq CO).
>
> According to the DLR, it's a real circuit, various portions of it ride
> varying sized OC circuits, and then it's handed off to us at each end the
> usual way (copper/coax) and plugged into PA-2T3 cards.
>
> Last Tuesday, at about 2:30PM, "something bad happened." We saw a serious
> jump in traffic to Ocala, and in particular we noticed one customer's
> connection (a group of load sharing T1s) was just totally full. We
> quickly assumed it was a DDoS aimed at that customer, but looking at the
> traffic, we couldn't pinpoint anything that wasn't expected flows.
>
> Then we noticed the really weird stuff. Pings to anything in Ocala
> responded with multiple dupes and ttl exceeded messages from a Level3 IP.
> Traceroutes to certain IPs in Ocala would get as far our Ocala router,
> then inexplicably hop onto Sprintlink's network, come back to us over our
> Level3 transit connection, get to Ocala, then hop over to Sprintlink
> again, repeating that loop as many times as max TTL would permit. Pings
> from router to router crossing just the DS3 would work, but we'd see 10
> duplicate packets for every 1 expected packet. BTW, the cisco CLI hides
> dupes unless you turn on ip icmp debugging.
>
> I've seen some sort of similar things (though contained within an AS) with
> MPLS and routing misconfigurations, but traffic jumping off our network
> (to a network to which we're not directly connected) was seemingly
> impossible. We did all sorts of things to troubleshoot it (studied our
> router configs in rancid, temporarily shut every interface on the Ocala
> side other than the DS3, changed IOS versions, changed out the hardware,
> opened a ticket with cisco TAC) but then it occurred to me, that if
> traffic was actually jumping off our network and coming back in via
> Level3, I could see/block at least some of that using an ACL on our
> interface to Level3. How do you explain it, when you ping the remote end
> of a DS3 interface with a single echo request packet and see 5 copies of
> that echo request arrive at one of your transit provider interfaces?
>
> Here's a typical traceroute with the first few hops (from my home internet
> connection) removed. BTW, hop 9 is a customer router conveniently
> configured with no ip unreachables.
>
> 7 andc-br-3-f2-0.atlantic.net (209.208.9.138) 47.951 ms 56.096 ms
> 56.154 ms
> 8 ocalflxa-br-1-s1-0.atlantic.net (209.208.112.98) 56.199 ms 56.320 ms
> 56.196 ms
> 9 * * *
> 10 sl-bb20-dc-6-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.174) 80.774 ms 81.030 ms
> 81.821 ms
> 11 sl-st20-ash-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.152) 75.731 ms 75.902 ms
> 77.128 ms
> 12 te-10-1-0.edge2.Washington4.level3.net (4.68.63.209) 46.548 ms
> 53.200 ms 45.736 ms
> 13 vlan69.csw1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.17.62) 42.918 ms
> vlan79.csw2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.17.126) 55.438 ms
> vlan69.csw1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.17.62) 42.693 ms
> 14 ae-81-81.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.137) 48.935 ms
> ae-61-61.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.129) 49.317 ms
> ae-91-91.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.141) 48.865 ms
> 15 ae-2.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.85) 59.642 ms 56.278 ms
> 56.671 ms
> 16 ae-61-60.ebr1.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.138.2) 47.401 ms 62.980 ms
> 62.640 ms
> 17 ae-1-8.bar1.Orlando1.Level3.net (4.69.137.149) 40.300 ms 40.101 ms
> 42.690 ms
> 18 ae-6-6.car1.Orlando1.Level3.net (4.69.133.77) 40.959 ms 40.963 ms
> 41.016 ms
> 19 unknown.Level3.net (63.209.98.66) 246.744 ms 240.826 ms 239.758 ms
> 20 andc-br-3-f2-0.atlantic.net (209.208.9.138) 39.725 ms 37.751 ms
> 42.262 ms
> 21 ocalflxa-br-1-s1-0.atlantic.net (209.208.112.98) 43.524 ms 45.844 ms
> 43.392 ms
> 22 * * *
> 23 sl-bb20-dc-6-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.174) 63.752 ms 61.648 ms
> 60.839 ms
> 24 sl-st20-ash-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.152) 66.923 ms 65.258 ms
> 70.609 ms
> 25 te-10-1-0.edge2.Washington4.level3.net (4.68.63.209) 67.106 ms
> 93.415 ms 73.932 ms
> 26 vlan99.csw4.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.17.254) 88.919 ms 75.306 ms
> vlan79.csw2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.17.126) 75.048 ms
> 27 ae-61-61.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.129) 69.508 ms 68.401
> ms ae-71-71.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.133) 79.128 ms
> 28 ae-2.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.85) 64.048 ms 67.764 ms
> 67.704 ms
> 29 ae-71-70.ebr1.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.138.18) 68.372 ms 67.025 ms
> 68.162 ms
> 30 ae-1-8.bar1.Orlando1.Level3.net (4.69.137.149) 65.112 ms 65.584 ms
> 65.525 ms
>
> Our circuit provider's support people have basically just maintained that
> this behavior isn't possible and so there's nothing they can do about it.
> i.e. that the problem has to be something other than the circuit.
>
> I got tired of talking to their brick wall, so I contacted Sprint and was
> able to confirm with them that the traffic in question really was
> inexplicably appearing on their network...and not terribly close
> geographically to the Orlando/Ocala areas.
>
> So, I have a circuit that's bleeding duplicate packets onto an unrelated
> IP network, a circuit provider who's got their head in the sand and keeps
> telling me "this can't happen, we can't help you", and customers who were
> getting tired of receiving all their packets in triplicate (or more)
> saturating their connections and confusing their applications. After a
> while, I had to give up on finding the problem and focus on just making it
> stop. After trying a couple of things, the solution I found was to change
> the encapsulation we use at each end of the DS3. I haven't gotten
> confirmation of this from Sprint, but I assume they're now seeing massive
> input errors one the one or more circuits where our packets were/are
> appearing. The important thing (for me) is that this makes the packets
> invalid to Sprint's routers and so it keeps them from forwarding the
> packets to us. Cisco TAC finally got back to us the day after I "fixed"
> the circuit...but since it was obviously not a problem with our cisco
> gear, I haven't pursued it with them.
>
> The only things I can think of that might be the cause are
> misconfiguration in a DACS/mux somewhere along the circuit path or perhaps
> a mishandled lawful intercept. I don't have enough experience with either
> or enough access to the systems that provide the circuit to do any more
> than speculate. Has anyone else ever seen anything like this?
>
> If someone from Level3 transport can wrap their head around this, I'd love
> to know what's really going on...but at least it's no longer an urgent
> problem for me.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis | I route
> Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are
> Atlantic Net |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:21:01 -0400
> From: "William Herrin" <herrin-nanog [at] dirtside>
> Subject: Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't
> know....
> To: nanog [at] merit
> Message-ID:
> <3c3e3fca0808102021q5f64733em4cde0b8e00ffb697 [at] mail>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Chris Paul <chris.paul [at] rexconsulting>
> wrote:
>> Sorry if this is real stupid for some reason because I don't think about
>> DNS
>> all day (I'm the ldap dude) but since we have faster networks and faster
>> cpus today, what would be the harm in switching to use TCP for DNS
>> clients?
>> The latency on the web isn't dns anymore ever it seems to me.....
>
> Latency on in-addr lookups where you typically traverse multiple
> forward trees to find the NS servers would seriously suck. At best, a
> TCP-based lookup performs at about a third of the speed of a UDP
> lookup. Worse unless your implementation is carefully optimized and
> you make sure that the OS isn't adding options to the front of the
> handshake. You have at least the whole syn/synack/ack handshake before
> you can even ask the question.
>
> Then there's the server cost associated with keeping that much state...
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Matt F <matt [at] credibleinstitution>
> wrote:
>> Why not just require TCP for a lookup if a response with an incorrect
>> TXID
>> is received? You could require TCP for just the one lookup or for some
>> configured interval, say 1 hour. That should slow attackers down
>> substantially.
>
> Because the attacker is using a sequence of lookups in order to hit
> one that lets him poison the cache. That is, he looks up a.google.com,
> then he looks up b.google.com, then c.google.com, etc. until he gets
> one where the server accepts his fake DNS server record for
> google.com.
>
> To be an effective defense, you'd have to do TCP lookups for the whole
> scope ({anything}.google.com) for some period of time following the
> bad ID. That in turn would open up a potential DOS where an attacker
> could force the DNS server to fall back on TCP for essentially
> everything, overwhelming it.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 8:25 PM, brett watson <brett [at] the-watsons>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Chris Paul wrote:
>>> Hey authority DNS server operators. Can you make a change to your
>>> servers
>>> to always allow TCP client connections? Would this be difficult? What
>>> would
>>> be the harm?
>>
>> SYN flooding?
>
> SYN flooding is a solved problem.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Joe Abley <jabley [at] ca> wrote:
>> TCP works pretty well with anycast too, if you're careful. It's helpful
>> if
>> your transactions are short-lived.
>
> Define "careful." It's always possible for someone to find themselves
> with an equal cost path to two different servers in the anycast set.
> Add per-packet load balancing at the fork (which is outside the
> control of the server operator) and what happens is the request times
> out and the resovler fails over to the other NS record that isn't
> anycasted.
>
> Though the protocol is simple enough that it might be possible to fake
> it. Build yourself a DNS-only stateless TCP stack for the anycasted
> address. Have the server send the syn-ack without creating any state.
> The request will almost certainly be entirely contained in one packet,
> so when it arrives reply to it without creating any state. Ship off as
> many packets as you need to reply followed by a Fin. Blindly ack any
> packet that looks like it needs it. If any packets are lost, there
> won't be any retransmit (you haven't really established a TCP
> connection) so the query will time out and retry.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin [at] dirtside bill [at] herrin
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG [at] nanog
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
>
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 7, Issue 26
> ************************************
|
