IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 27 May 2019 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AB712015A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 09:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 JP2sICc_h5zX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 09:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2766112001B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x4RGHPMM069238 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 27 May 2019 17:17:26 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <232c1a43-0fd9-4eae-737b-260a3906f72a@gmail.com> <663F6C0B-7B8A-4088-B9C0-B2867B0C3EB8@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3VJN7qNHAW-yStMrDRCa4vsDs2ObkAxswnYbcHde2t_w@mail.gmail.com> <m1hPqHO-0000J8C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau3R=4JbcbK7tWkJKYzVjq7DvAAEjVsbCLbZdYYO8OJ0YA@mail.gmail.com> <m1hQ7Dm-0000M3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau040j6U+1CCn0QJiVMy2nVShHqqSFdCkM-FbMAH-2wjRA@mail.gmail.com> <m1hQCYr-0000KBC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <561d9dc3-c769-c774-8f65-f975ac2a10a0@gont.com.ar> <m1hT1DZ-0000HEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <ce07ade8-5105-055f-4798-f4ef20a2393c@si6networks.com> <CAN-Dau02MYCrKx2BgyuYJeHBdoz6SHCnp+-byM+LMM8af0S+rA@mail.gmail.com> <40e99171-6dda-29e3-6152-da5ca5219ed9@foobar.org> <CAN-Dau0ALqfAA-Dz56oHAfOtY7E2obx5E7TgoeH357Mckp3t9g@mail.gmail.com> <093ba8e2-6f0a-4c91-9df1-cda33fffea97@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2zDJsVxy65nqwMm8SwUGjdE0vVHH4=XqO3pjGwi1U6Mgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <23bf8cbc-09c0-165a-bd6f-08bc5d8ada19@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 17:17:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2zDJsVxy65nqwMm8SwUGjdE0vVHH4=XqO3pjGwi1U6Mgw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/8Zd-Tc8i4u-y-Axj9HXczhwOyx8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 27 May 2019 16:17:32 -0000

Mark Smith wrote on 27/05/2019 15:58:
> What I don't understand it some people seem to be quite fine with
> rogue RAs, meaning they're happy to have hosts universally trust
> received RAs, rogue or not, until this flag was proposed.

there have always been issues about the wisdom of trusting 
unauthenticated, unsolicited datagrams with no signatures, but this is 
probably something better discussed over beer and peanuts, while 
recounting the times we nuked all the boxes on the LAN by connecting up 
a new sun workstation running routed :-)

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email