RE: [savi] Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

I agree with Thomas.  The reason I and Wes could reply with some ideas
is because we are familiar with the cable deployment and contributed
text for ND Proxy behavior in cable standards.  A start for diagram may
be RFC4779 that DSL folks should look at and tell us what they talking
about.  If a DSL deployment doesn't exist in RFC4779, then for long-term
one should bis RFC4779 to include the new DSL deployment so that all can
reference a common doc and discuss deployment problems for IPv6.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: savi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:savi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Narten
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 2:18 PM
To: Stark, Barbara
Cc: 6man-ads@tools.ietf.org; SAVI Mailing List; savi-ads@tools.ietf.org;
james woodyatt; v6ops-ads@tools.ietf.org; IPv6 Operations; IETF IPv6
Mailing List
Subject: Re: [savi] Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

> The liaison was posted in March 2009. It can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file621.doc

This is too skimpy of problem statement for me to understand the
details of the problem.

I don't know that a lot is needed. Maybe 2-3 pages is enough. But show
me a diagram, label the pieces, show me the properties of the pieces
and explain what the *exact* problem is. Who needs to do DAD? Why
doesn't it work? etc.

And note that comments like (quoting from the above statement):

  "We can envision a number of scenarios, both malice or vendor
   incompetence by which this can happen."

There is very little anyone can do to prevent "vendor
incompetence". I hope you aren't asking the IETF to solve this
problem! :-)

Thomas
_______________________________________________
savi mailing list
savi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi