IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] [6tisch-security] proposed security text for architecture draft

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 18 November 2014 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADDD1AD0C9; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:24:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 4nf_M6C_kpVL; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB7FA1AD05C; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A32C2009E; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:26:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1B564637F5; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:23:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03BC7637EA; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:23:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272B22DF@TGXML210.toshiba.local>
References: <20507.1415811045@sandelman.ca> <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272A8EFA@TGXML210.toshiba.local> <5854.1415835364@sandelman.ca> <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272A9108@TGXML210.toshiba.local> <29465.1415934436@sandelman.ca> <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272A988F@TGXML210.toshiba.local> <2187.1415945515@sandelman.ca>, <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272A9AFF@TGXML210.toshiba.local> <976D1F6A-3A48-4BBB-8297-58071788A04E@cisco.com> <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272A9CEA@TGXML210.toshiba.local> <8608.1416111323@sandelman.ca> <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272B22DF@TGXML210.toshiba.local>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:23:58 -0500
Message-ID: <10985.1416284638@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/R2xeRpNb1Z3c_sb553UpXsCzvjQ
Cc: pthubert@cisco.com, 6tisch@ietf.org, 6tisch-security@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [6tisch-security] proposed security text for architecture draft
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 04:24:00 -0000

<yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp> wrote:
    > I am not sure if Ethernet and loopback should be considered as LLN
    > interface where mesh routing is needed.  Let's focus on a case with
    > multiple LLN radio interfaces (though such a case seems not very
    > common). 

Take two constrained devices with a generous power supply, wire ethernet
between them so that the "signal" can get through that metal door/wall. 
That's the whole point of doing this all at layer 3.

    > Is a distinct routable IP address allocated to each of the multiple LLN
    > radio interfaces on a JA?  If so, relay can still work even if there
    > are multiple JNs having the same link-local address accessing via
    > different LLN radio interfaces. 

Assuming that your source route references the correct outgoing link-local
address, I agree; I think we can make it work. It might be not to spec, but
maybe running code should trump the spec.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status