IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] control and security of DHCP

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Wed, 15 January 2014 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7C81AE33A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:09:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.758
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oUtRzxanrPBq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65B71AE06A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0FC8plV006739; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:08:51 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk s0FC8plV006739
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1389787731; bh=KjA34ZJm/+roMQUJ4gXiBgtoh0Q=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=EzbtYiP0NfZsYx9XrPsl0IuIQl/FfMGmpMJYkIjEPCQRQDuFq6NoaI7IYweVjtyct Fa7ViOxEF9quWTfThwGoUdZa5PSeP768gLi8ugb+lej8AEDV/XBlle3tEGtZ6/UcUn v/ICkfMaCvwBv52lh5sQgGt/3QKi0IB6LtoYswd4=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id q0EC8p0959649316DC ret-id none; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:08:51 +0000
Received: from tjc-vpn.ecs.soton.ac.uk (tjc-vpn.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.236.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0FC8m8o020775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:08:48 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FB10414E-E845-4639-AFDD-976FA12F8893"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2WMzfi0_s34h4Q2EiQp=YFor78hsUiB8fVbGMyojEU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:08:49 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a3d075fc053a7d251459ec8edca9e383q0EC8p03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|02C4DFC9-847B-47B9-84B3-99967FCF2DE2@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCDA31A30EB1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz> <52CFB8D5.70900@gmail.com> <B54D5283-8880-434A-A3C0-9BFF0081E13B@gmail.com> <20140110.124610.74672987.sthaug@nethelp.no> <60C5513D-B8DA-48D6-82D3-53E148F9F7BA@gmail.com> <52D0157D.6040009@foobar.org> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401101651580.20074@uplift.swm.pp.se> <D1FC3C0B-CC5D-44BC-B753-2F1BD94A48FA@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr1C0jRNq-ta=HeGFusC8VFGGg1ffDFLoroUoiHmX-KYiA@mail.gmail.com> <52D18F22.1070708@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr2PrG_Rit2YCAkep4_-LUSqNpEU-t+ttRsLPpSbYVLoig@mail.gmail.com> <1389490607.51957.YahooMailNeo@web161904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <52D2A8EF.2040901@foobar.org> <52D4E794.3070109@globis.net> <52D57214.1070505@foobar.org> <52D57DC5.9080603@globis.net> <52D58413.3050506@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr2WMzfi0_s34h4Q2EiQp=YFor78hsUiB8fVbGMyojEU1Q@mail.gmail.com> <02C4DFC9-847B-47B9-84B3-99967FCF2DE2@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=q0EC8p095964931600; tid=q0EC8p0959649316DC; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=4:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: s0FC8plV006739
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Cc: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] control and security of DHCP
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:09:19 -0000

On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:52, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> > So what security are you suggesting to deploy to ensure that your set up
> > remains sufficiently isolated between customers, even though they share a
> > L2 LAN?
> 
> Right now?  I have nothing.  I can't deploy ipv6 without holes large enough
> to drive trucks through.
> 
> You can't give every customer their own /64? 

As a slight aside, we found that at certain vendors charge rather more for images with L3 functionality than for L2 functionality, so it costs more in real £££ to put /64 per interface.  So even if the device is capable of doing it, it's frustrating that there's a tiered pricing structure.  I'd rather the vendor recognised the potential change in IPv6 usage here and had price parity (on the lower price!).

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email