RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 25 August 2008 02:43 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 B01103A68A3 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.636
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 C0cKqA3NR77D for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055C03A688F for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KXRyo-000CD6-OF for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:38:54 +0000
Received: from [171.68.10.86] (helo=sj-iport-4.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dwing@cisco.com>) id 1KXRyj-000CCe-V0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:38:52 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,264,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="20705350"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2008 02:38:49 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7P2cnHa021015; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:38:49 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7P2cnB9017103; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:38:49 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 'Mark Smith' <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>
Cc: jhw@apple.com, 'IPv6 Operations' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
References: <20080824204553.08131c65.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <48B1CCE8.1070305@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:38:49 -0700
Message-ID: <01af01c9065b$b4602440$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AckGLilsURXqBV2MSCq6x4q2vXCbXQALTSUg
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
In-Reply-To: <48B1CCE8.1070305@gmail.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2049; t=1219631929; x=1220495929; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Some=20suggestions=20for=20draft-ietf-v 6ops-cpe-simple-security-03 |Sender:=20; bh=B2d877x3YcSuQV/kBq85GoN9C63e6wTFAQEjSUS26oo=; b=uAGFWjLroj94mYNGOJbMCYghS4ccWthp5qyAcGGRrSGPmSTkjhe4GlMhuj B0zirG6BwQMci6Fsq65svxQKSMqtgPaRdx+aMKfI72ZcY8o4t9uAdzY4kYhh BBUAbjdiCj/z8AtDKk8jMFDlHi6cvboJU7UoNUzJDPUjbD6YLmVVs=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:05 PM > To: Mark Smith > Cc: jhw@apple.com; IPv6 Operations > Subject: Re: Some suggestions for > draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03 > > Hi Mark, > > On 2008-08-24 23:15, Mark Smith wrote: > ... > > 2.2. Internet Layer Protocols > > > > "Therefore, this document recommends the DEFAULT operating mode for > > residential IPv6 simple security is to permit all virtual private > > networking tunnel protocols to pass through the stateful filtering > > function. These include IPsec transport and tunnel modes as well as > > other IP-in-IP protocols." > > > > Would it be better to restrict this to authenticated tunnelling > > protocols? Wrapping a malicious packet inside a GRE or IP packet and > > having the CPE blindly forward it would seem to me to be a really > > simple and easy way to bypass all the security mechanisms that this > > draft is defining. > > I would object to that. That amounts to default-deny for all > the commonly used ways of bypassing ISPs that don't support > IPv6, and that would be a Bad Thing. You're saying that the Simple CPE Security document is not intended to provide security, but rather intended to provide a way to receive unsolicited IPv6 traffic through non-IPv6-capable SPs? -d > I think a recommendation that CPEs should document and warn about > such risks is a good idea, rather in the manner of personal > firewalls that alert you the first time you try to tunnel out > with Protocol 41, but remember when you click OK. Can we recommend > default-warn rather than either default-deny or default-allow? > > ... > > A few thoughts related to general tunnel security. Is it > > appropriate for this draft to document... > > How about referring to draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns? > We should probably concentrate those issues in one place. > > Brian >
- 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