Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09

Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com> Fri, 19 March 2010 18:02 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 9C4DE3A6917 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 F62uTpbOo7kR for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9613A691C for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1NsgVS-0003QO-QV for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:01:10 +0000
Received: from [171.68.10.86] (helo=sj-iport-4.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <townsley@cisco.com>) id 1NsgVP-0003Pz-2t for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:01:07 +0000
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,275,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="103004339"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2010 18:01:06 +0000
Received: from iwan-view3.cisco.com (iwan-view3.cisco.com [171.70.65.13]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2JI16ia007289; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:01:06 GMT
Received: from ams-townsley-8715.cisco.com (ams-townsley-8715.cisco.com [10.55.233.230]) by iwan-view3.cisco.com (8.11.2/CISCO.WS.1.2) with ESMTP id o2JI0rY11114; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BA3BBCF.2090903@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:00:47 +0100
From: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
CC: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09
References: <D6F5ACD2-EB43-477E-9F48-AC3EDB3F7EB4@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6F5ACD2-EB43-477E-9F48-AC3EDB3F7EB4@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

I would like to propose some form of "ParanoidOpeness" (Rule #7) from 
draft-vyncke-advanced-ipv6-security-01 to be brought into the 
simple-security draft.

The basic idea is that rather than blocking otherwise unauthorized 
inbound connections outright, the CPE rate-limits them according to a 
variable setting. When that setting is 0, all incoming packets are 
dropped. When set to its maximum, all packets are permitted (as if the 
firewall function is configured off). In-between, the CPE rate-limits 
incoming packets to reduce probing of the home network, but to allow 
just enough packets through that, if a host inside responds, a pinhole 
is opened for the communication to occur. Of course, the hard part is 
what the default setting should be, but I'd like to get a sense first of 
whether we can bring this function in.

James, I think I remember you being warm to the idea in some (jabber?) 
comments during the meeting in Hiroshima when I presented this first.

Thanks,

- Mark

On 3/4/10 12:06 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
> everyone--
>
> Once again, I'd like to ask for some discussion and feedback on this draft.  Is there any reason this revision of the draft should not proceed to Working Group Last Call at this time?
>
>
> --
> james woodyatt<jhw@apple.com>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
>
>
>
>
>