Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 12 March 2013 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C5011E80F0; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.375
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
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 z0mtxmscwFh0; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0EC11E8127; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [130.129.16.118]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32E5722060; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:46:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347C9CA0BC; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
In-reply-to: <CAK=bVC9YV3nEtGe1LTUkg3AztiKG6dCJe8Bd4L-UkKLeuj1urg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12252.1363112423@sandelman.ca> <CAK=bVC9YV3nEtGe1LTUkg3AztiKG6dCJe8Bd4L-UkKLeuj1urg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> message dated "Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:31:44 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:46:05 -0400
Message-ID: <16795.1363117565@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: roll@ietf.org, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, saag@ietf.org, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:46:08 -0000

>>>>> "Ulrich" == Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>; writes:
    Ulrich> I think it is also worth mentioning RFC4903, in particular:

    Ulrich> "A multi-link subnet model should be avoided.  IETF working groups
    Ulrich> using, or considering using, multi-link subnets today should
    Ulrich> investigate moving to one of the other models."

    Ulrich> Have the issues mentioned in RFC4903 been sufficiently addressed?

I think that if we were going supposed to avoid a multi-link subnet,
that would have been objected to already.  
I think that 4903 concerns applied to all of 6lowpan and ROLL work, and
I think that actually we did deal with all of these.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-