Re: ESSID ietf-v6only at IETF 100 - security

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 11/14/17 14:59, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 14/11/2017 à 07:24, Warren Kumari a écrit :
> [...]
> 
>> ​Nope. We have the legacy SSIDs because some people apparently had
>> issues connecting to encrypted SSIDs (because of old OS / broken
>> wpa_supplicant, etc) - this wasn't issue with certs, but rather
>> providing a solution for those who are unable to do WPA enterprise /
>> have old cards, etc.
> 
> Well - sorry, but all these reasons seem light for me.
> 
> I have Windows 7 which is not old.  Updated regularly from Microsoft and
> from employer IT.

Mainstream support ended January 13, 2015. It works, if you were looking
for a more streamlined experience, the user experience has improved a
bit since then, it has not been backported.

> The WPA_supplicant comes from original.  It is widely accepted at many
> other hotspots.
> 
> My laptop is very well able to do WPA enterprise, and WPA2 Enterprise.
> 
> The laptop is a Dell E7440, 2 or 3 years old.  I dont accept to call
> that old.  What makes laptops old is when they break; they often break
> because of mechanically moving parts like hd, but this one is SSD.
> 
> Rather, I suspect there is a preference at the Access Point to favorise
> Macintosh variations of WiFi Clients, rather than Windows.

There's no obvious basis for that assertion.

> I also wonder why my Windows complains that the cert emmitted by IETF is
> "not configured as a valid anchor".  Should I manually install that
> cert?  If so, that is little reasonable to ask.
https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/wiki/IETF100network
https://802.1x-config.org/?idp=137&profile=101

> Alex
> 
>>   There was an assertion made that some people were not using nat64
>> and were using ietf-legacy were easier, and so there should be parity,
>> and so the ietf-nat64-unencrypted was created.
>> We are changing the name of the ietf-legacyXXX network at each meeting
>> because we don't people who connected to it at a previous meeting to
>> become sticky to it and keep joining -- it requires a specific action
>> at each meeting for the user to choose the unencrypted network -- we'd
>> all prefer that people use the encrypted network...
>>
>>
>>
>>     And yes, my VPN FortiClient works ok on ietf-nat64-unencrypted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
>> idea in the first place.
>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
>> of pants.
>>     ---maf
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>