Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Tue, 12 March 2013 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 D4B451F0C36 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 6hm-d0JbBM8D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f179.google.com (mail-ve0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E51821F8C8F for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id da11so222883veb.24 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FOp06LDqNC2OAeQtOlfytgoc6dVhly+Qv8Dt8u+jXTo=; b=zZ0xeCpLCSyxaQaOobOwYY/fa0+J0f4OjJZR/HBKPyW8Dh/6SjDPnBpwcPYjLnsMTM llRilkQxMPntQ/5arBlYnFHAC7xxxhqrzt75cCvPUNx+cLbuH4JyhFSBdtsUnftKPmQA 9E/P7Sct9TB5OFCmtNt0XGWWt2/J1szvDc3RM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=FOp06LDqNC2OAeQtOlfytgoc6dVhly+Qv8Dt8u+jXTo=; b=dMGATLqrWpsXdtmsFjvSrNdYGLCQOoFDzdlDvwL6NmfPaET82lWO/Mtp/GTYxTd+Pa 74EBU1azIp7n1pJQxZ3ac9AL+YW+C5SArB3x+aG+1k3NzggcplvoAcPJuB2p58oWjFFe PWI3dh+i5oz0/bnUxJb2YdW4J61fFSPxpc3HItB6zJdmvMO8DlVU/KfrqcthcW/VpMuB oVYUbl1gq8V32AneDuhoaP1KXlXMpsjaxjh0JScua6X239yzS0v68p8XfkQHmx5ABODm W2IHMEOcrr565JWCJOhYnYd+16yvP/tF5q7dnF8fiju5ReVRMxBaW7kOu1FGmPbS3fjE a8NQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.188.48 with SMTP id fx16mr7285150vec.22.1363120566754; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.106.202 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <16795.1363117565@sandelman.ca>
References: <12252.1363112423@sandelman.ca> <CAK=bVC9YV3nEtGe1LTUkg3AztiKG6dCJe8Bd4L-UkKLeuj1urg@mail.gmail.com> <16795.1363117565@sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:36:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC8oae_OyUUCtFd+Va1J8hQKSYTbqxn0Z-Kd=J=DBuiG0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnu690R+HSUB30lWc1BfRMxiLVvCPF9RoNgfkwSWIpMUKQf92VpWtHxBJHzxnCGVKgJNsRD
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 20:36:09 -0000

Michael,

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; wrote:
> [...]
>     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.

I must have missed that discussion. Can you please point me to where
and how the issues have been solved, and why the advice of RFC4903 to
not use multi-link subnets does not apply to LLNs / to RPL?

Thanks
Ulrich