IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security WGLC

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 14 November 2013 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32FFA11E80F9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:55:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 9pyyjTrFLbLX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72B721E812F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id C55CAA1; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:55:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF9D9C; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:55:13 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:55:13 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Marc Lampo <marc.lampo.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB0C4xM_eN7x-4G6YYku+t=X_w3c7LiEU6AR1EDvhT6Kea_hqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311141152210.5805@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <201311101900.rAAJ0AR6025350@irp-view13.cisco.com> <CAB0C4xOfz_JAjEEJZ-Zz7MBEyZhVzrAE+8Ghf1ggC3+9pyHmNg@mail.gmail.com> <989B8ED6-273E-45D4-BFD8-66A1793A1C9F@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311130329180.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAB0C4xOd-ryBXe4O3XoLTLDw-XuOV==X0nkRg5y3aPXCtf+Gow@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311140639140.5805@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5FC5FC3F-B933-4ACE-A7A9-00A1E275B4EF@cisco.com> <CAB0C4xMhxnev+NHx_Vzdjvrp9zE0jj7avsb9zUFGRKhQFne14A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311140935510.5805@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAB0C4xM_eN7x-4G6YYku+t=X_w3c7LiEU6AR1EDvhT6Kea_hqw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:55:20 -0000

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Marc Lampo wrote:

> In my opinion : not before the owner has explicitly instructed his CPE 
> to allow incoming connections (RFC 6092, REC-48).

I guess we'll just have to disagree then.

I believe the owner should put their devices on a DMZ if they want this 
behaviour, not that this behaviour should be default.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email