IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

"Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn@mitre.org> Fri, 06 November 2009 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jdunn@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932EF3A6A75; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:18:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.494, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3F+UVgZAsWo; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (smtp-bedford.mitre.org [129.83.20.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE31B3A69F0; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nA6JINrW028184; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:18:25 -0500
Received: from imchub1.MITRE.ORG (imchub1.mitre.org [129.83.29.73]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nA6JINbm028178; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:18:23 -0500
Received: from IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.204]) by imchub1.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.73]) with mapi; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:18:22 -0500
From: "Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn@mitre.org>
To: Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:18:19 -0500
Subject: RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security
Thread-Topic: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security
Thread-Index: AcpfD9ATPsDVSCGmTqCpJYWjx52aqwABaHbA
Message-ID: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B76270367855B2F@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
References: <AFC1ACFB-FDFA-482C-AAF9-7995F5CEFE1F@broadband-forum.org> <F311A255-3303-4C9D-B270-D1D23DE31E31@cisco.com> <200911061358.nA6DwXNq025458@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B76270367855A0E@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG> <alpine.OSX.1.00.0911060823410.126@cust11794.lava.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.1.00.0911060823410.126@cust11794.lava.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:39:55 -0800
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "6man-ads@tools.ietf.org" <6man-ads@tools.ietf.org>, SAVI Mailing List <savi@ietf.org>, "william.allen.simpson@gmail.com" <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>, Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>, Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>, "Susan@core3.amsl.com" <Susan@core3.amsl.com>, "savi-ads@tools.ietf.org" <savi-ads@tools.ietf.org>, Robin Mersh <rmersh@broadband-forum.org>, Thomson <sethomso@cisco.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, "v6ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" <v6ops-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "IETF@core3.amsl.com" <IETF@core3.amsl.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:18:02 -0000

Antonio,

Regardless of whether the ISP bridges the NBMA links or not, the CPE router will not propagate the ND or NS messages onto these links. The Ethernet and Wi-Fi BMA LAN segments are separate logical links from each other and the ISP link(s). How will the CPE router be "convinced" to bridge these link-local scoped messages off link?

Best Regards, 
  
Jeffrey Dunn 
Info Systems Eng., Lead 
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)


-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:tony@lava.net] 
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: Thomas Narten; Fred Baker; 6man-ads@tools.ietf.org; SAVI Mailing List; william.allen.simpson@gmail.com; Hesham Soliman; IETF@core3.amsl.com; Erik Nordmark; savi-ads@tools.ietf.org; IPv6 Operations; Thomson; v6ops-ads@tools.ietf.org; Robin Mersh; Mailing List; Susan@core3.amsl.com; JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
Subject: RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:

> The problem is IMHO the following: How to assign an IPv6 UGA to CPE 
> hosts attached to a BMA LAN (usually Ethernet or Wi-Fi) that is in turn 
> connected via a CPE router through an NBMA link (cable modem or DSL) to 
> an ISP router that provides Internet access. Currently, there are two

And what happens when there are multiple CPE routers

a)  connected via a BMA LAN to the DSL or cable modem

and/or

b)  'connected' via separate NBMA links but are on the same WAN subnet 
(assigned by the ISP)

I think in the latter, if the ISP decides to silo the individual NBMA 
links then they need to adjust for that in how they do the sub-delegation 
which is I think what the issue is.  But if the ISP actually bridges the 
separate NBMA links, then there's no silo issue and the CPE can pretend 
they're in 'a'.

Antonio Querubin
808-545-5282 x3003
e-mail/xmpp:  tony@lava.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email