Re: [OPSEC] comments: draft-dugal-opsec-protect-control-plane-02
David Dugal <ddugal@juniper.net> Mon, 19 April 2010 17:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ddugal@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41E73A6B1A for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 2iog2ZS-9XBN for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39F83A6BF1 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS8yQ1NpJuGIBB5uE47c2GOR5aJ82JkGR@postini.com; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:20:46 PDT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (172.28.40.119) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.436.0; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:17:44 -0700
Message-ID: <4BCC8FB9.7010003@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:15:37 -0400
From: David Dugal <ddugal@juniper.net>
Organization: Juniper Networks, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
References: <4BCB50A5.9010805@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BCB50A5.9010805@bogus.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "draft-dugal-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org" <draft-dugal-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org>, "'opsec@ietf.org'" <opsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] comments: draft-dugal-opsec-protect-control-plane-02
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:26:29 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for the comments, Joel. The IPv6 suggestion is a recurring theme. We plan to add references to IPv6 in -03. Not sure how that JUNOS typo got past the editors (me). I'll fix it in - -03 as well. - - Dave On Sun Apr 18 2010 14:34:13 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time), Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> proclaimed ... > Some thoughts as a contributor not as working group chair... > > I'd like to see the configuration examples in appendix a and b extended > to handle the ipv6 case as well. > > In the juniper section I think the icmp rule is missing a directive: > > term icmp { > from { > protocol icmp; > } > policer 2Mbps; > ^ > then? > > then accept; > } > > at least with the router I have to the lab running 10.1 it doesn't > accept that stanza as written. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAkvMj7gACgkQh59lzatuAqWK0gCfSjcRMHmyNNS8N5zcJVmAZm0s 8AgAoIZt+MdqhuDR2gUyFcpvCAcMkSkf =92el -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [OPSEC] comments: draft-dugal-opsec-protect-contr… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [OPSEC] comments: draft-dugal-opsec-protect-c… David Dugal