Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Tue, 14 December 2010 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3E128C0F9; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 z6tT-mirAnus; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:53:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [216.235.14.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD6428B797; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:53:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [199.212.90.26] (helo=dh26.r1.owls.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <jabley@hopcount.ca>) id 1PSYD0-000LS2-PY; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:58:39 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <9B0EE2FE-9DCB-4F52-8515-F30050DF46F8@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:54:42 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1958D397-8B8F-4046-A976-46AEC67EA214@hopcount.ca>
References: <001201cb9b59$acd02d70$06708850$@net> <DCC6725D-0C45-47BD-AC49-A38A256A75A8@hopcount.ca> <9B0EE2FE-9DCB-4F52-8515-F30050DF46F8@cisco.com>
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 199.212.90.26
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on monster.hopcount.ca); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:36:03 -0800
Cc: draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, opsec-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:53:10 -0000

On 2010-12-14, at 11:43, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:

> Please note that this was intentional, as a doc produced in Opsec we intended to make it as close to the operational reality we know as possible. And our perspective was that we see more 1645/1646. 

I understand that's your perspective, which is entirely understandable given what cisco devices do by default, but I don't think it's necessarily the case that 1645/1646 are universally prevalent (at least, claims that it is ought to be balanced with some balanced, real-world observation). I take your point that juniper devices accommodate the pre-standard ports as well as the IANA-assigned ones. There are more vendors in the world than just C and J, however.

I think pointing out that 1645/1646 are also used is perfectly valid, for the reasons of operational reality that you mention, but that the examples should use 1812/1813.


Joe