Re: draft-macaulay-6man-packet-stain-00 High Level Questions
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 17 February 2012 00:50 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 D930321F8755 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XZZpGN2CkiB0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2745C21F8742 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eekc41 with SMTP id c41so1174726eek.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:50:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=g8dXCSmDSE6CGQtgflMCCvO91YgiR85xSS9cBvykM+Y=; b=vHFgCzg+jKOjTO68Lt3WWEWu7av7BgInHA4qVIzVI6Kuxf0zJCcqoejPQcIBa3u3mC y1yky7zOoDsD91TH3V+0fUbUXuPcw4qN88KzWxMykS4RIbYiz+5KDgDJ8nc2uRTNLRCU ILk/KEOAKQgcwcLjVROkXxrP+QI8EcC6Fyq+s=
Received: by 10.213.14.205 with SMTP id h13mr607072eba.5.1329439811285; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.1.3] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o49sm32150561eeb.7.2012.02.16.16.50.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F3DA43A.2030303@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:50:02 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Martin, Steve" <s.martin1@lancaster.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: draft-macaulay-6man-packet-stain-00 High Level Questions
References: <C03F3430284E23419D3BD41E5827FE11891559@EX-1-MB0.lancs.local>
In-Reply-To: <C03F3430284E23419D3BD41E5827FE11891559@EX-1-MB0.lancs.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:50:13 -0000
On 2012-02-17 10:23, Martin, Steve wrote:
...
> So, and this is where you paper is relevant, I have been pondering how IPv6 can be deployed to these subscribers with the added benefit of the "built-in" security that they have been used to with the likes of NAT.
This was the subject matter of RFC 4864. Also see RFC 6092.
I will refrain from the standard rant about the assertion that
NAT is a security mechanism, since that is covered in RFC 4864.
Brian
- draft-macaulay-6man-packet-stain-00 High Level Qu… Martin, Steve
- Re: draft-macaulay-6man-packet-stain-00 High Leve… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: draft-macaulay-6man-packet-stain-00 High Leve… Dan Wing