IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>

"Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com> Fri, 22 October 2010 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <julienl@qualcomm.com>
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 6752F3A68E7 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 9exlqr-digYX for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6103A683E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=julienl@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1287768348; x=1319304348; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; z=From:=20"Laganier,=20Julien"=20<julienl@qualcomm.com> |To:=20Philip=20Homburg=20<pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>,=20Su resh=20Krishnan=0D=0A=09<suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> |CC:=20IPv6=20WG=20Mailing=20List=20<ipv6@ietf.org>|Date: =20Fri,=2022=20Oct=202010=2010:25:45=20-0700|Subject:=20R E:=20Consensus=20call=20on=20adopting=20<draft-krishnan-6 man-rs-mark-08.txt>=20|Thread-Topic:=20Consensus=20call =20on=20adopting=0D=0A=20<draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08. txt>=20|Thread-Index:=20ActyA+/lfgNm/I0yQviWIV5bw/5v6AACe X9w|Message-ID:=20<BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F29F6C3 6D06@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>|References:=20<3F7E0126 -76FB-43BA-B25F-1EE226FA73AA@gmail.com>=0D=0A=09<79ECC38B -B7AD-47B1-B6A4-E0B4F75B91F1@gmail.com>=0D=0A=09<m21v7icp 8p.wl%randy@psg.com>=09<m1P9IGH-0001fnC@stereo.hq.phicoh. net>=0D=0A=09<4CC19ACF.5070706@ericsson.com>=09<m1P9IZF-0 001gMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>=0D=0A=09<4CC1A3A5.9040209@er icsson.com>=09<m1P9J7Y-0001VwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>=0D =0A=09<4CC1A846.4030605@ericsson.com>=20=20<m1P9KDC-0001i FC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>|In-Reply-To:=20<m1P9KDC-0001iFC@ stereo.hq.phicoh.net>|Accept-Language:=20en-US |Content-Language:=20en-US|X-MS-Has-Attach: |X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage:=20en-US |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-ascii" |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=yVvVUukv5yBqdkfuwaMRhuSbpRmKkf28v4/5WbIDwFk=; b=ECVYgJHkyj7osWLQiYLu0+5+5a2JfA04BoZFbbnWzaOTi+fjuLRTWqSl pzL3F50098AYW+q9Pj/+eUTmvQRuKrHlygTOx9XIvf9J9XBW9Dm/I6Z6+ Ei4h+3MB7t0axYbWdfV7pZ3zuboKEnSkYtid4XhTRd7rMKpYzbiT9iQUq I=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6144"; a="58871719"
Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2010 10:25:48 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,224,1286175600"; d="scan'208";a="26106188"
Received: from nasanexhub01.na.qualcomm.com ([10.46.93.121]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 22 Oct 2010 10:25:48 -0700
Received: from nasanexhc06.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.3) by nasanexhub01.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.93.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.83.0; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:25:48 -0700
Received: from nalasexhub01.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.130.49) by nasanexhc06.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:25:48 -0700
Received: from NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.7.118]) by nalasexhub01.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.130.49]) with mapi; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:25:48 -0700
From: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:25:45 -0700
Subject: RE: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>
Thread-Topic: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>
Thread-Index: ActyA+/lfgNm/I0yQviWIV5bw/5v6AACeX9w
Message-ID: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F29F6C36D06@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <3F7E0126-76FB-43BA-B25F-1EE226FA73AA@gmail.com> <79ECC38B-B7AD-47B1-B6A4-E0B4F75B91F1@gmail.com> <m21v7icp8p.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1P9IGH-0001fnC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC19ACF.5070706@ericsson.com> <m1P9IZF-0001gMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC1A3A5.9040209@ericsson.com> <m1P9J7Y-0001VwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC1A846.4030605@ericsson.com> <m1P9KDC-0001iFC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
In-Reply-To: <m1P9KDC-0001iFC@stereo.hq.phicoh.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
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, 22 Oct 2010 17:24:11 -0000

Philip Homburg wrote:
> 
> In your letter dated Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:05:42 -0400 you wrote:
> >On 10-10-22 11:01 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >> Then I guess the obvious next question is how this interacts with
> >> SEND if the original 3 RS messages are lost.
> >
> >The AN-initiated RSs in this case will not be SEND protected RSs (since
> >we do not have the host's private key), but the edge router is still
> >free to send SEND protected RAs back to the host in response to this RS.
> >Then the host and the edge router can use SEND for protecting any
> >further ND messages.
> 
> I wonder what to make of that. If the SEND protected RS messages can be
> replaced with AN-initiated (unprotected) RS messages, then what purpose
> does protecting those messages serve in the SEND framework?

The customer host will receive a SEND protected RA, which makes it possible to validate that it comes from a legitimate router (via certificates validation) and is not being replayed (via timestamps.)

BTW - I support adoption of this draft.

--julien

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email