IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03

Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com> Wed, 27 August 2008 12:27 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 384AF3A6A08 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.742, BAYES_40=-0.185, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ZCkbeY+5yw8m for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCDD3A6884 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KYK7H-000N4q-5Q for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:27:15 +0000
Received: from [2001:41d0:1:a0d6::401:1983] (helo=yop.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rdenis@simphalempin.com>) id 1KYK7C-000N3i-NU for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:27:13 +0000
Received: by yop.chewa.net (Postfix, from userid 33) id 31ED8CDC; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:27:09 +0200 (CEST)
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:27:09 +0200
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com>
Organization: Remlab.net
In-Reply-To: <48B53F07.2090807@free.fr>
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> <08b901c90710$4064aa60$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <48B354FA.7040601@gmail.com> <48B50B10.9090005@free.fr> <f0913a34d402b6a4d25787bab3eea17b@chewa.net> <DC237AE116C10E4C9AD162D6C2EE62FE0106AF6D@vaebe102.NOE.Nokia.com> <48B53F07.2090807@free.fr>
Message-ID: <4158cc80a1f883909d3eb5601583cfd9@chewa.net>
X-Sender: rdenis@simphalempin.com
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:48:23 +0200, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>

wrote:

> Indeed, if a cell phone would open just a few (address,port) couples,

> possibly none, for incoming connections, and would have this enforced by

> its service provider, it would be much better protected against battery

> exhaustion due to malevolent (address,port) scanning.



Well, that's a double edged sword.



The fact that most 3G IP access are currently heavily firewalled forces end

devices into sending frequent keep-alive packets. That affects the battery

lifetime VERY BADLY. In practice, no firewall would damage battery lifetime

_much_less_ than a statefull firewall.

Discarding a few bogus _received_ packets is much less current-expensive

than _sending_ frequent keep-alive packets.



-- 

Rémi Denis-Courmont

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email