IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 07 May 2019 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 996BF12006B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2019 23:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 4ZuhaK2RJrS1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2019 23:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A5A120041 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2019 23:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6BF1AB5; Tue, 7 May 2019 08:40:34 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1557211234; bh=bGMC8JMzyYS68aO31rLB2gU6YEBPxKxcnONI7C8d0Os=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=K8nVrZJABquFI4Q5m+/hg5qVfuETfcwoIDFI2cRmZt3kX2H3XSxH+qahQc0FyYNDp 8kSWJcriGdd5VNOEramU8vg5qE7/HfI+VZNt7G4ChK++kwbnA6eAejiykx4KCntCTs upHa2nH1zYMoxamAbBa3LJ3JF/AxZNI5SlfOfr/k=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69FFEB4; Tue, 7 May 2019 08:40:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 08:40:34 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
In-Reply-To: <8750C633-C2AF-48B2-A96D-1A571B55613E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905070836530.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <a2465e81-a17f-ab48-efda-20fe12a70077@foobar.org> <30239E0C-C444-4A7E-8342-AEE47BF8A2BB@employees.org> <8b9fd743-bfcc-525c-98f6-154f3fa713cc@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2zEWvt9NyemMb8H0AEvPvmNSDGa4wcXiS6n5yRxNFCHQg@mail.gmail.com> <c7e18765-be04-6494-8193-984dbccb520b@foobar.org> <CANMZLAYh+V57yrWOzmUyjSMK0g95u1D5_GZmyZBMOMKAZnrnCg@mail.gmail.com> <3F474511-6FE3-4A0A-9B84-7C37F08FBB5D@steffann.nl> <E352C226-C708-4418-BCDE-10525CAB109A@jisc.ac.uk> <652fb10e-b8ce-0151-a9a0-62d2378caed2@gmail.com> <0079c716-d56c-7199-f493-f5e56e1307ae@foobar.org> <b33de303-eaca-f7f6-804e-2c9343eb92a1@gmail.com> <6C4ABEF1-2565-4BA9-9FC5-5B3C45A719AD@gmail.com> <8750C633-C2AF-48B2-A96D-1A571B55613E@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ncStuw8XG3eyLxm1mPwGy1nWnHU>
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: Tue, 07 May 2019 06:40:42 -0000

On Fri, 3 May 2019, Gyan Mishra wrote:

> I forgot to mention that Send RFC 3971 is now being supported after a 
> long time by routers but for the endpoint OS support may be a a lot

SEND is basically useless compared to SAVI (first-hop-security). If you 
don't secure your L2 then you're still open to so many attack vectors that 
SEND doesn't help you.

If you don't implement SAVI-like features to secure your L2, then the 
proposed v6-only flag makes no difference in security. With or without it, 
you don't have any security and should have no expectation of security.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email