Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

["VAN DE VELDE, Gunter (Nokia - BE)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred,

This seems no different as with v4 technology at community Wi-Fi… 

G/



On 07/01/16 16:47, "Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Gunter,
>
>OK, so you are saying that the MAC address of the UE is used as the UE identifier.
>But, both link-local and MAC addresses can be readily spoofed by an attacker,
>either to steal the service of the legitimate node or to deny service to the
>legitimate node. In order to avoid that, the UE would have to have some form
>of identifier that cannot be spoofed, or sign its messages using a certificate
>provisioned by the service provider - even though captive portal is being
>used to authenticate the user.
>
>Thanks - Fred
>[e-mail]
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: VAN DE VELDE, Gunter (Gunter) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 1:51 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail] WG
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Fred,
>> 
>> 
>> The WLAN-GW should not care about overlap here, there is a split horizon function and the wlan-gw should be able to handle
>> overlapping IPs. Link-local address may be stored to e.g. use when sending RA, but it should not be used as a key, that is the role of
>> the MAC address. So as long as MAC addresses don't overlap there should not be a problem distinguishing UEs.
>> 
>> 
>> That being said, it would be unlikely to happen since link-local addresses in a WiFi context are mostly EUI-64 based and thus encode
>> the MAC address which as stated should be unique.
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> G/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 06/01/16 21:01, "Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> >I have what I hope will be a simple question: what if two or more UEs configure
>> >identical IPv6 link-local addresses - will the WLAN-GW be able to tell them apart?
>> >Asked another way, what kind of unique node identifier does the WLAN-GW
>> >expect each UE to provide in the initial RS?
>> >
>> >Thanks - Fred
>> >[e-mail]