Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-shore-icmp-aup
神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 30 December 2013 18:46 UTC
Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492651AE53E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:46:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.922
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 L09aY5J1ihnE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03671AE535 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id a1so14301625wgh.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:46:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=b0Khcy+ZzHceNp7eA0WDYiYIV0GCnrNTb1HGcACIPE8=; b=mzvziSA6G9rzkICT57muJ8oHIfeQUYcmktyJ+sfG5xzGfSDz/FrNgVEHZrj2WTN18P HjszD6PRxkLnxGBNmnEZOo6pwBztj62Ai0aISg+56ajL2cDQrHAlGQosOp/Oy+/g1KB+ jGaqYc0/nPIC8+t5/AkS689C1AVYykyf0NWbDkqbobf3rgjyVx8I2NQS3GiuKu3VfKQU vAEfFG1+qfxmtQ/tKV0VhjYnL5/RF6JnhAH2fMkApkE4HOTwc3KwpFYhmysp/5mm/zRm xuKgd4rJXWPVEZcsm35CbCQ2+TxcLG2XxUd5yGUya5sae057pkYwyvtH4k6kn/pn9hcr Be6Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.174.36 with SMTP id bp4mr46681896wjc.7.1388429173505; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:46:13 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.120.167 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:46:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <B213E479-3A2B-4A83-B3F1-8BF7D199928B@cisco.com>
References: <4E36B3A8-5B6B-4EE8-BAC7-4378F81BADC0@employees.org> <CAJE_bqc3=ZBLPub-m7A=t6dx0E4ZSYaWXyW+K96Y_+tDXC1fqg@mail.gmail.com> <B213E479-3A2B-4A83-B3F1-8BF7D199928B@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:46:13 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ikpjKfNovwxYFisD0SXCLNvhhdQ
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfjGQwDcuHv0mvUjNtsT-LEYSX0aQEEFUEpsEHa2DCn8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-shore-icmp-aup
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "<draft-shore-icmp-aup@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-shore-icmp-aup@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 18:46:21 -0000
At Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:51:13 +0000, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote: > > - In Section 2.3, it states: > > > > Because ICMPv6 is used for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, deployed IPv6 > > routers, IPv6-capable security gateways, and IPv6-capable firewalls > > normally support administrator configuration of how specific ICMPv6 > > message types are handled. > > > > Is this true? The question is actually two-fold: I'm not sure if > > it's true that "IPv6-capable firewalls normally support..." > > (especially if such FWs don't have the support for ICMPv4); even if > > this is true, I'm not sure if that's because ICMPv6 is used for ND. > > ND messages are only used in a single link, so at least for > > firewalls from one link to another, ND should still work even if > > they filter any ICMPv6 packets without any configuration knob. If > > these are really true and the fact, then that's fine. It just > > didn't seem to me likely. > > You will find that the tone of this section is not that of a definitive absolute statement. Chances (and hopes) are that future of configuration features will be implemented in v6 (and ICMPv6) before ICMPv4, if at all on v4. I'm not sure if this answers my questions. But if you are confident that what's written in this section is accurate, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I've confirmed my other comments were addressed in the 08 version. -- JINMEI, Tatuya
- 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-shore-icmp-aup Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-shore-icmp-aup 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-shore-icmp-aup Ray Hunter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-shore-icmp-aup Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-shore-icmp-aup Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-shore-icmp-aup 神明達哉