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

Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com> Wed, 24 August 2016 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lilishan48@gmail.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 4A92612D1A2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 TRmIW7Y42JOh for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E166912D108 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id t7so4059631qkh.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yItKdzDkR3q81byRYbC4x8i6UUxcagXlWO2xk67lbJ0=; b=UaaLBOMbvkQBP8D0tNvP0srGQIIQCvZwO93ten/9HaW3AKVLyaVlVsagqoHmMEkqo7 IB9BrSpSIX7di8DEhokIpsaljlD0NUUuZb09ZL9VZKCFLnixhrZqp5TcKwy4OcR1P/ve dYXFqy84C97wcXjUub+QJaAI1sLQrPFTdOuf8/fuHP9XfV+PaSUKYksE2ivpLURjFaIa cwkfxouHgd7LlyV5tU6j/NHg+uSZ9vLk4PYaNf8GEji2IzUK2BD+qH1UalsttWPrxtIP 7AbopE4J3mkJ4zbet5SVNo6wQMUsBzOr/mFt720dzOmpi6tutNldRkWFUI+u44VragbS Ho0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yItKdzDkR3q81byRYbC4x8i6UUxcagXlWO2xk67lbJ0=; b=DL4tWqOmwUVBQ/xhuRIF8cUdPClTUwhtaDBH95kABN+P7lLnvr3ey2nXrZq48g84Vc z189cs58q+Fq533+00tXo5lMWyPf6otifUrs4BcVY+6eR+al6qZlYsgP0vKt8UvW9Hov fe1BMKaIEoAZiSBsx1eOSJc7wEBNZX8Tj9B7Cf/rH4yRlHp4UZpjmpxFAvgW4YCz7N+J Is12mSzaj+ugkPW267ePqXcmWg9QoY1glazoqGxv1v4ErRuTAIfb0eIp18Dwku0ZbjR0 ydUaD8fsm8DxcR/J0PRz1OL58++EQIQhjNq8iuKoLKsWcS5KjZLc94Zvyp9XmC1Mrbvi H12Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMvRYrQaPuJNLMGJjtGCV5ltxB15WnqBcgcivLSatq2jjb5SUdIQxFnqKPoSQDnbTPjpftuvwqt0GMyAw==
X-Received: by 10.55.165.193 with SMTP id o184mr989446qke.284.1472009985036; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.44.111 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3A5F0B79-8C76-4E82-97E9-FA63657DE6C3@cisco.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>
From: Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:39:44 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJ3w4NdjgVxvnvuaWjGM=qtOe0qUq4N96fVXsbNrf=YkhiABbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c060e5a43959c053ac908bd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/b0GOHrRYNMTPT_SDoNy910D17dE>
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 03:39:48 -0000

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>:

> 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>
> 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
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:38 AM
> >> To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>; Templin, Fred L <
> Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> >> Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Francis Dupont <
> 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] On
> Behalf Of ????
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:54 PM
> >> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> >> Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Francis Dupont <
> Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>; Bernie Volz (volz) <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> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>