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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Sat, 20 March 2010 19:56 UTC

Subject: Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BA524A8.9020201@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:53:36 -0700
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6BE2A3C-57BD-486D-B9C6-382B42FA4A67@cisco.com>
References: <D6F5ACD2-EB43-477E-9F48-AC3EDB3F7EB4@apple.com> <4BA3BBCF.2090903@cisco.com> <4BA3D1B3.4010501@gmail.com> <9EEBEB1D-8D88-45DB-9200-EBE2ED0D84CF@apple.com> <4BA524A8.9020201@cisco.com>
To: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mar 20, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:

> Rate-limiting unsolicited inbound connections rather than rejecting them provides greater end-to-end transparency while still providing protection against address and port scanning attacks as well as overloading of slow links or devices within the home.

SIlly question. Why do you believe that? An address or port scanning attack is not intended to overload a network, it is intended to find an address port that can be used or attacked. Making the scan take more time doesn't prevent it from reaching its target. In what way does rate limiting an address or port scan provide protection?

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Ole Troan
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
RE: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Fwd: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP… Rémi Després
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP … james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP … Rémi Després
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Shane Amante
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Cameron Byrne
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Gert Doering
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Status of RFC 4864 (was Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-si… Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Ole Troan
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter