RE: New router feature - icmp error source-interface [was: icmp rpf]

["Berkman, Scott" <Scott.Berkman () Reignmaker net>]

Might this not be a bad idea if the router has interfaces on multiple,
separate paths?  Such a case may be where one customer or set of traffic
routes over a link to ISP A, and other traffic over a link to ISP B, and
not all related addresses are portable.  In that case the loopback
address for the ICMP errors might show from an address that seems to
belong to a block from ISP A, but is really traffic that was transported
on ISP B.

        Just trying to come up with possible issues, not saying that's a
best practice or anything...

        -Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Patrick W. Gilmore
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: nanog () merit edu
Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore
Subject: New router feature - icmp error source-interface [was: icmp
rpf]


On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:

> ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface 
> used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet. Thus giving an 
> interface an address is implicitly giving that interface the ability 
> to source packets with that address to potential anywhere in the 
> Internet. If you don't legitimately announce address space then 
> sourcing packets with addresses in that space is (one definition of) 
> spoofing.

Who thinks it would be a "good idea" to have a knob such that ICMP error
messages are always source from a certain IP address on a router?

For instance, you could have a "loopback99" which is in an announced
block, but filtered at all your borders.  Then set "ip icmp error
source-interface loopback99" or something.  All error messages from a
router would come from this address, regardless of the incoming or
outgoing interface.  Things like PMTUD would still work, and your / 30s
could be in private space or non-announced space or even
imaginary^Wv6 space. :)

Note I said "error messages", so things like TTL Expired, Port
Unreachable, and Can't Fragment would come from here, but things like
ICMP Echo Request / Reply pairs would not.  Perhaps that should be
considered as well, but it is not what I am suggesting here.

Obviously there's lots of side effects, and probably unintended
consequences I have not considered, but I think the good might out-
weigh the bad.  Or not.  Which is why I'm offering it up for suggestion.

(Unless, of course, I get 726384 "you are off-topic" replies, in which
case I withdraw the suggestion.)

--
TTFN,
patrick