Re: [dhcwg] [saag] Fw:Fw:New Version Notification for draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-encryption-02.txt

李丽姗 <> Mon, 31 August 2015 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB0A1B3463; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N6YBQKiGjsy4; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BD5D1B3413; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by laboe4 with SMTP id oe4so39691114lab.0; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=31n2ux1vXRwe8z8p89C+haE8B2AZLek1XoLviR0/Hgs=; b=skCbMXXHrj9ROBWtgY7/nKAMmNFp3GAI7KNKXoSkKTbHjs2Ho6rxOtKyZTHjjkB4NS qB0XA4uhiYyO8xUu87uXzBGj9QMmbFP6mOYu1FCgUN2mJMKF0hNWGiPCUhzC0O/L/Mv5 c3bZuU+23Nn5QjWwZtNvHFwdh84iAo8xXPXI7VjnGGw8Lh/WfoDL1MB2Gjm67rB+xCRt wo833TvekyW389P2zum0vYEyJng0wPrdeW5rvnf5KECjPQwz1wis/kZUVKRP0n5bYoiN PDIpO4ssR8wJfWsNjz1cW7SbBUMIJ0gnwA+0qqLTR8/V4cOsJsrZudcI0ECHYF5f2odN fjEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id y5mr7584110lbr.120.1441007839493; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:57:19 +0800
Message-ID: <>
From: 李丽姗 <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3b4e8644450051e96c896"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [saag] Fw:Fw:New Version Notification for draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-encryption-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:57:23 -0000

Dear Erik,

Thanks very much for your corrections and guidance.
IMHO, 802.1x is typically used to authenticate a device. we presume that
802.1x is used, then the various critical identifiers are faced with
surveillance risk. According to privacy considerations for DHCPv6 [1], the
various identifiers need to be protected from pervasive monitoring. To
protect the DHCP privacy information from monitoring, I think the
encryption between the DHCP client and server is necessary.

Best Regards,


At 2015-07-30 17:41:56, "Erik Kline" <> wrote:
>>>Even in the "trusted network" scenario, the gain is only apparent in the
>>> absence of link-layer protection. For example, enterprise Wi-Fi networks
>>> typically use 802.1x and EAP to negotiate a link-layer encryption key
>>> specific to the client. This goes a long way towards protecting all the
>>> traffic, including DHCP. Clearly there is a residual risk of on-line
>>> attackers, such as a local computer owned by a virus. That risk is
>>> mitigated by filters in the switches, restricting the sending of DHCP
and RA
>>> packets. DHCP encryption would be useful if it was easier to deploy than
>>> those filters, and more secure.
>> [Lishan]: The link-layer encryption 802.1x and EAP you mentioned is only
>> designed for the Wi-Fi network. For the general scenario, such as wired
>> environment, the DHCP encryption is needed.
>802.1x works on wired ethernet.