RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 28 August 2008 15:52 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF403A6CC5 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.488, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 W8AX5-r1n-FJ for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1388828C200 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KYje8-000BWw-Cn for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:42:52 +0000
Received: from [130.76.96.56] (helo=stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>) id 1KYje3-000BVu-KF for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:42:50 +0000
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m7SFgOr8028901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:42:25 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m7SFgOIp021270; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:42:24 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m7SFgMuG021197; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:42:24 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:42:23 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:42:22 -0700
Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E93393@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <05ad01c90922$854aa710$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
Thread-Index: AckIqJVZkxMn88XYT3yfZ5L+fRrrJwAAxBwgAByuuLAAAOY6EAAAXjvw
References: <20080824204553.08131c65.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <48B1CCE8.1070305@gmail.com> <01af01c9065b$b4602440$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B23391.1090503@gmail.com> <01cd01c90672$a57c8790$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B31DA3.6080001@gmail.com> <07d201c906f7$50a85e30$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B32B43.5010103@gmail.com> <084c01c906fe$f9bf1840$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B33430.40704@gmail.com> <A31EB889-2BD9-4283-A408-AB6DCC1D568A@suspicious.org> <08be01c90712$d876cd40$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <20080827194713.23271bd1.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <CD947C45-58F7-47F1-807F-A276490B1E39@apple.com> <0e6001c908a2$b8fcf700$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <F0E4B018-AA5E-4344-A40B-3F6D974B7EA1@apple.com> <001b01c908ac$2b7d5140$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E93359@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <05ad01c90922$854aa710$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>, james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2008 15:42:23.0980 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA7162C0:01C90924]
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:27 AM >To: Templin, Fred L; 'james woodyatt'; 'IPv6 Operations' >Subject: RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read >the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for >draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03) > >> >My confusion -- which persists even after reading your email -- is >> >what this home network (with a dual-stack CPE) looks like: which >> >device(s) terminate IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels (the CPE itself? Or a >> >host behind the CPE?), which devices get IPv4 addresses (only the >> >CPE itself, or also devices behind the CPE?), and so on. >> >> In the case of unsolicited incoming IPv6-in-IPv4 packets, >> if the CPE is a 6to4 or ISATAP router, the CPE terminates >> the tunnel. (If the site behind the CPE uses ISATAP, the >> packets are then admitted into a *different* tunnel that >> spans the site behind the CPE.) > >(Just stating the obvious, but I want to point out) this >requires the CPE itself have a publicly-routable v4 address. True for 6to4, but not true for ISATAP; if the CPE were assigned a private address on it's provider-side interface it could still be configured as an ISATAP router. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com >> If the CPE is *not* configured as either a 6to4 or ISATAP >> router, a Teredo tunnel could still be used to direct >> encapsulated packets through an open port in the CPE >> and to the final destination within the site. (That is, >> if the port is being kept open through keepalives sent >> by the final destination.) > >Which requires the host behind the CPE (the one running >Teredo) first start up Teredo. This changes how 'unsolicited >incoming packets' > >> I haven't read the draft, but I'm pretty sure this stuff >> is well known within the v6ops community; does the draft >> fail to mention and/or misrepresent any of the above? > >Yes, I am coming into the middle of a discussion; life is >full of such events. My apologies. > >But the assumed model(s) need to be explained, in the draft, >so that it is clear how those models apply to dual-stack-lite >and to IVI/NAT64/NAT-PT -- all of which change the assumptions >(due to lack of publicly-routable v4 address for some of >those solutions). Or, alternatively, if it is this draft's >intent that its model for v6-in-v4 is only intended to work >if the CPE has a publicly-routable v4 address. > >-d > >
- Fwd: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-si… Fred Baker
- Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-… Mark Smith
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Mark Smith
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… EricLKlein
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Truman Boyes
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Gert Doering
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Rémi Després
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Rémi Després
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Gert Doering
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Rémi Denis-Courmont
- But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read t… Mark Smith
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… teemu.savolainen
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Rémi Després
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Rémi Denis-Courmont
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Rémi Denis-Courmont
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Dan Wing
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… james woodyatt
- Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… james woodyatt
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… james woodyatt
- RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-sim… Dan Wing
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Mark Smith
- Purpose of ALD (was Re: Some suggestions for draf… james woodyatt
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… james woodyatt
- RE: Purpose of ALD (was Re: Some suggestions for … Dan Wing
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Dan Wing
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… james woodyatt
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Dan Wing
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Rémi Denis-Courmont
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Templin, Fred L
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Dan Wing
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Templin, Fred L
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… james woodyatt
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Templin, Fred L
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… james woodyatt
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Templin, Fred L
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Rémi Després
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Dan Wing
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Templin, Fred L
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Rémi Després
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Templin, Fred L
- RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Dan Wing
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Mark Smith
- Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I re… Mark Smith
- Re: tunnel protocols (draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple… james woodyatt