IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] questions about address protected ND: draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 17 August 2016 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B2012E04C; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Thin7PD6pq6H; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EB3E12DDC0; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1426; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471449044; x=1472658644; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4naNH2uORlzOE1lmBIQR3NRwAI3B0gyU76nAJEmHkXU=; b=GUBs4Nm21MtkVqMiLn5vuHRA4ywe/dwZejzU82YHbqiUGVxJr9ddsCaI YFWnID6mNlNKcTq8xCUS/PP4tz7fAtC7pCtmCyqiGqGCPTk/J36cfyXkN L97EY0HJUjnb/riXOg3Nk1jAHUhYyzyyevHipIvkJ19EtwdIH5ZT23PjX U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AoAgCnhrRX/4MNJK1eg0RWfAe5MIF9JIJCgzcCgWk4FAIBAQEBAQEBXieEXgEBBXkMBAIBCBEEAQEBJwcyFAkIAgQOBQiIKQ69YAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFhiqETYobBY5Wim4Bhh+Id49QjDuDdwEeNoN6boV1fwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="312024304"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Aug 2016 15:50:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7HFoh4Q002117 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:50:43 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:50:43 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:50:42 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Thread-Topic: questions about address protected ND: draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd
Thread-Index: AQHR+ItNqRCQ0fFl+EKT8/p15zuBBaBNKXQwgAB2O4D//6xioA==
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:50:14 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:49:22 +0000
Message-ID: <8784aa6c1ff64792a2a81f1776d2f970@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <22880.1471440526@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <f8dbb3f22fdb4cea8aab3045b9ca8f00@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <21681.1471448771@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <21681.1471448771@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.28]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/GB6nq2b896CQIQ1--iAfDONXn20>
Cc: "draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd@ietf.org" <draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] questions about address protected ND: draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:50:48 -0000

Yes, Michael;

Last we discussed that (at IETF 96) people pointed that expiry would actually be the best protection, and that CGA being proven and implemented, it was the best approach. I'd like to see this confirmed (IANAL).

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca]
> Sent: mercredi 17 août 2016 17:46
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Cc: 6lo@ietf.org; draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: questions about address protected ND: draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd
> 
> 
> thanks for the reply.
> 
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>     > It is largely unwritten Michael,
> 
>     > That's ultimately a WG decision, and part of that decision is that we
>     > want to assess if the IPR on CGA is an issue or not.
> 
>     > My take is that we should adopt the work if we agree on the overall
>     > idea, knowing that CGA is one way of getting there; and then refine
>     > this as a WG.
> 
> a) Hosnieh's proposals
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas/
> 
>    might not suffer from the same IPR.
> 
> b) I wonder what is the expiry on the IPR. CGA is more than a decade old now.
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -=
> IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email