IPv6 QUIC traffic

[Damian Menscher]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Dominik Bay <db at rrbone.net> wrote:
>
>> On 06/04/2015 04:00 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
>> > On 06/04/2015 01:08 PM, michalis.bersimis at hq.cyta.gr wrote:
>> >>> From our side we have seen lots of IPv4 traffic from sources
>> >>> originated from AS15169 (UDP port 443) .We are using netflow to
>> >>> identify the traffic.
>> >
>> > You're right,
>> >
>> > We can also see the relevant IPv4/IPv6 traffic via Netflow, as it enters
>> > our network, It's just weird that we don't see logs for the denied
>> > matched IPv4 packets further down the network, as we do for IPv6...
>>
>
Random guess: All your traffic to Google is over IPv6, and that's why you
don't see IPv4?

Why are you blocking QUIC traffic anyway?
>>
>
> This is an IPv6 list, and there is no reason to block quic on IPv6.
>
> But, i definitely rate limit UDP ipv4 since that vast majority of UDP is
> DDoS traffic... I have suggested to the QUIC folks to use a new protocol
> number so they are not guilty by association with other UDP service... but
> they think broken CPE are a bigger problem.  I think DDoS from UDP (NTP,
> DNS, SSDP, CHARGEN, SNMP ...) is a bigger problem....
>

You don't need to block all UDP to filter DDoS traffic.  Rate-limiting
traffic from the specific ports you mentioned (123, 53, 1900, 19, 161) is
sufficient.  Given QUIC traffic always uses a high-numbered ephemeral port,
there's little risk of impact to it if you rate-limit only those ports
commonly used for amplification.

I guess Google will just have to deal with QUIC not working on IPv4 in my
> network.  Or they can use a new L4 protocol number and use the proven fall
> back strategy they already have with TCP to apply here as well...
>

I'm not sure your users will agree with your choice, especially as more
sites start to support QUIC, but I suppose they can always move to another
provider.

Damian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20150604/532dcbb5/attachment-0001.html