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

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 24 August 2016 15:19 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 F2F4C12D0AD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 UO2wqSt7zMEZ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:19:29 -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 2C53012D0DF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:04:08 -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 u7OF477C041555; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:04:07 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-05-01.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.137.100.58]) by ewa-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id u7OF444I041481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:04:04 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8989:6450::8989:6450) by XCH15-05-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8989:643a::8989:643a) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:03:00 -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; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:03:00 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
Thread-Index: AdHz4kyO7hzDfzYnSfqWBjHhBsGHFqBFt3GAoEOccRC/eUedAP/8S5WA//aij8CAFPU5gP//AD5QoEYx64D//16xcKA73swQwHdAwFuA7cV/AA==
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:03:00 +0000
Message-ID: <2f45b99b50f84b1280e92ad824e39e26@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <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> <b65e1dd66b634240b3ca164b2c04c20a@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfb5sxOpkTEXkwZXckKBWof7U1-W6EFzCHk7ijnMjpMMA@mail.gmail.com> <5ec83aaf4e76497aa4b4d465483bdcf5@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqeKqEgLVC2ZZyUCjsrPP5_suRJ8en2NC+g13Q5PyQL1iw@mail.gmail.com> <30c9413c4662476096ef087ac88f6314@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <dc9d2c300d574732a12f7f366f6223c0@XCH15-05-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <3A5F0B79-8C76-4E82-97E9-FA63657DE6C3@cisco.com> <CAJ3w4NdjgVxvnvuaWjGM=qtOe0qUq4N96fVXsbNrf=YkhiABbQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3w4NdjgVxvnvuaWjGM=qtOe0qUq4N96fVXsbNrf=YkhiABbQ@mail.gmail.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2f45b99b50f84b1280e92ad824e39e26XCH150505nwnosboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/OIiWnwRFjDQi6Bm2yZT0HG24JWI>
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
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: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:19:33 -0000

I have presented a use case (AERO) that needs DHCPv6 authentication but
not encryption, and I have stated that encryption will be incompatible with
my use case. Bernie mentioned another use case that will be incompatible.

As far as I can tell, AERO will be one of the most important use cases for
DHCPv6, and also as far as I can tell secdhcpv6 could easily be relaxed to
satisfy the need. So, drawing a hard line like this is essentially blocking an
important use case for no good reason. Is that really what people want?

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

From: Lishan Li [mailto:lilishan48@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 8:40 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>; <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>; 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)

Hi, Fred,

In the Applicability part of secure DHCPv6, it is stated that: secure DHCPv6 is applicable in any environment where physical security on the link is not assured and attacks on DHCPv6 are a concern.
In addition, after the discussion in Yokohama, we have reached a consensus that: Given the focus on pervasive monitoring, all encrypting is the correct direction.


Best Regards,
Lishan

2016-08-24 5:55 GMT+08:00 Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>>:
My point is that we will need to develop a solution for this (i.e. something like the referenced draft); not that this should change sedhcpv6 work.

Given the focus on pervasive monitoring, encrypting is the correct direction.

- Bernie (from iPhone)

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
>> Note that encryption will cause significant issues for DOCSIS and likely other deployments where the relay currently snoops the traffic.
>
> This is exactly the case for AERO, i.e., the relay snoops the traffic which
> must be available in the clear.
>
> So, authentication-only is what is needed. And, it does not need to have
> anything added to the spec - only a relaxation of what is already there.
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.templin@boeing.com>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>]
>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:38 AM
>> To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp<mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp>>; Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>>
>> Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>> <dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>>; Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr<mailto:Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>>
>> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
>>
>>> so not very convincing to overturn a wg consensus on always enabling encryption
>>
>> Agreed. We held discussions with others (Randy Busy, etc.) and are under the belief that what is there is in the right direction. This is
>> an overall solution to the DHCP security solution and tries to address FULL security (as the traffic is encrypted - so it addresses privacy).
>>
>> I'm not sure if encryption harms anything in  your environment; so what harm is there to use it?
>>
>> Note that encryption will cause significant issues for DOCSIS and likely other deployments where the relay currently snoops the traffic.
>> So, we'll need to address how to handle that (either dust of the https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate
>> work or come up with something else). Until something else is in place, those environments just can't make use of this capability.
>>
>> - Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com<mailto:jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com> [mailto:jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com<mailto:jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of ????
>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:54 PM
>> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>>
>> Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>> <dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>>; Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr<mailto:Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>>; Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
>>
>> At Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:42:38 +0000,
>> "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I already made a stronger case as follows:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> To me, it just looks like "in some cases encryption may not be needed"
>> and not so different from "it's overkilling for me", so not very
>> convincing to overturn a wg consensus on always enabling encryption.
>> But it's ultimately up to the wg.
>>
>> --
>> JINMEI, Tatuya

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg