Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

On Sat, 16 May 2020, 12:43 Xiejingrong (Jingrong), <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
wrote:

> Hi WG,
> My main concern is the security aspect.
> It has been in discussion in another thread "Questions regarding the
> security mechanisms".
> Hope it could be carefully considered and discussed, especially there is
> the painful example of RH0 deprecated by RFC5095.
> There is of course RFC6554 and RFC8754 which is designed later after the
> deprecation and which could be carefully learned and referenced.
>
> Ole said and repeated that "In fact I don't see how the CRH draft prevents
> the RFC5095 attack to happen inside of the CRH limited domain."
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UyXsGeI7IDM9_Z1lipG70gIzTLY/
>
> I was even worried about whether such attack could happen from Internet if
> there is no mandatory and deployable security mechanism on the wide
> boundary of a network.
>
> Brian observed the "limited-domain" pattern that is widely used in modern
> protocol design and put the heavy emphasis on the domain boundary security.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-limited-domains-13
>
> The RFC8754 section 5.1 IMO is the only boundary security mechanism
> operable/controllable/deployable so far I've seen for an IPv6 network that
> is widely connected to Internet.
> Please correct me if you have some other better ones.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8754

RFC4193, a limited domain and local network only address space.

See also slide 50.

"Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right"
https://www.ausnog.net/sites/default/files/ausnog-2019/presentations/2.3_Mark_Smith_AusNOG2019.pdf

>
> BTW:
> I don't think it deserved to throw away everything that SRv6/SRH have
> worked out (e.g., the RFC8754 section 5.1) just to claim the independence
> on them.
> I have an I-D of IPv6-EH using many of the design patterns of SRv6/SRH
> with a reference to RFC8754 but I still insist and show its independent
> part.
>
> Thanks and Best wishes,
> Jingrong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:14 AM
> To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> Subject: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
>
> This message starts a two-week 6MAN call on adopting:
>
>  Title:          The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)
>  Authors:        R. Bonica, Y. Kamite, T. Niwa, A. Alston, L. Jalil
>  File Name:      draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-21
>  Document date:  2020-05-14
>
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
>
> as a working group item. Substantive comments regarding adopting this
> document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can
> be sent to the authors.
>
> Please note that this is an adoption call, it is not a w.g. last call for
> advancement, adoption means that it will become a w.g. draft.  As the
> working group document, the w.g. will decide how the document should change
> going forward.
>
> This adoption call will end on 29 May 2020.
>
> The chairs note there has been a lot of discussions on the list about this
> draft.   After discussing with our area directors, we think it is
> appropriate to start a working group adoption call.  The authors have been
> active in resolving issues raised on the list.
>
> Could those who are willing to work on this document, either as
> contributors, authors or reviewers please notify the list.   That gives us
> an indication of the energy level in the working group
> to work on this.
>
> Regards,
> Bob and Ole
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>