Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 16 August 2016 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE5512D619 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZPIKCQoBg8LE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ewa-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (ewa-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.20.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D74112B024 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ewa-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id u7GLaRxe053503; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:36:27 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-03.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-05-03.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.137.100.66]) by ewa-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id u7GLaIO9053421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:36:18 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8989:6450::8989:6450) by XCH15-05-03.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8989:6442::8989:6442) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:36:17 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.137.100.80]) by XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.137.100.80]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:35:34 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
Thread-Index: AdHz4kyO7hzDfzYnSfqWBjHhBsGHFqBFt3GAoEOccRC/eUedAP/8S5WA//aij8A=
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:35:34 +0000
Message-ID: <b65e1dd66b634240b3ca164b2c04c20a@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: Your message of Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:10:10 -0000. <92dcf2e0cf08452caa5861f7258ea6c5@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <201608121919.u7CJJqcS056876@givry.fdupont.fr> <c5303eef3c124228825f32a40f229107@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <ccaff4d4cb5c4eefb05eee0660c2611c@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <f46aa91e4cfb41b29dd2d8186f5959f8@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <ba1c8ff573d7466b8c437373e05f1023@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <ba1c8ff573d7466b8c437373e05f1023@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/C9mRlBBXROf-JcLpgnRQmCe4e8E>
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:36:30 -0000

Hi Bernie,

I glanced through the document, and my first impression is that it has become
overkill for what I need. For my needs, there is already link-layer security and
so I do not need encryption between the client and server. But, the link is
very large and may be vulnerable to an insider attack in which the attacker
impersonates a legitimate client in an attempt to steal the legitimate client's
service. So, all I need is some way for the client to authenticate itself to the
server assuming that the client and server have manually configured
public/private keys and certificates before the client is put into service.

I think what that means in terms of this draft is that for some use cases all
that is needed is for the client to include a Signature option in its DHCPv6
messages to the server. The client does not need to include a Certificate
option nor any encryption options. So, I would like it if the draft could
include a simple "authentication only" mode of operation.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>om>; Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
> Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
> 
> OK, I will have a look.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 4:58 PM
> > To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
> > Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
> >
> > I'd suggest you read the latest sedhcpv6 draft - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6. My understanding is that a
> client
> > can present a certificate to the server.
> >
> > If you have comments on it, please do send them along. We are looking for additional comments on this document.
> >
> > - Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 7:23 PM
> > To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>om>; Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
> > Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
> >
> > Hi, OK to remain silent on this but:
> >
> > > => IMHO it should not and in particular it should not be referenced as
> > > a replacement for authentication according to the new direction taken by secdhcpv6 (i.e., encryption vs authentication).
> >
> > this part has me worried. My use case is a large multi-access link that is secured via physical and/or link-layer security. But, the link is
> > still vulnerable to "insider attacks" where a rogue node might try to fool the DHCPv6 server into giving it configuration information
> > pertaining to a victim node. So, I was counting on
> > secdhcpv6 to provide a means for the server to authenticate each client.
> > Has something changed?
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 12:38 PM
> > > To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>fr>; Templin, Fred L
> > > <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > > Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> > > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
> > >
> > > I second this ... mostly because:
> > >
> > > 1. It is still very much a work in progress.
> > > 2. Several previous attempts at this had to be rebooted; while we hope that isn't the case this time around ...
> > > 3. This is the base standard and extensions to it will always exist.
> > >
> > > Note: We only reference two drafts, prefix-length-hints and topo-conf.
> > > Topo-conf will be an RFC well before this one (it is at RFC- editor).
> > > And, we still need to finalize what we do re: prefix-length-hints in this document (see Ticket #114 -
> > https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/114).
> > >
> > > - Bernie
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francis
> > > Dupont
> > > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 3:20 PM
> > > To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > > Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
> > >
> > >  In your previous mail you wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Should RFC3315(bis) cite 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6?
> > >
> > > => IMHO it should not and in particular it should not be referenced as
> > > a replacement for authentication according to the new direction taken by secdhcpv6 (i.e., encryption vs authentication).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dhcwg mailing list
> > > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg