IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 29 August 2008 23:56 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 6BA713A6AB4 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 fNRVpbJYxQfl for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E163A6A3B for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KZDgX-0002Ai-Ae for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:47:21 +0000
Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dwing@cisco.com>) id 1KZDgS-0002AD-Ti for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:47:19 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,295,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="149409375"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2008 23:45:55 +0000
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7TNjtMQ024882; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:45:55 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7TNjswU010891; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:45:54 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Templin, Fred L'" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, 'james woodyatt' <jhw@apple.com>, 'IPv6 Operations' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
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> <A31EB889-2BD9-4283-A408-AB6DCC1D568A@suspicious.org> <08be01c90712$d876cd40$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <20080827194713.23271bd1.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <CD947C45-58F7-47F1-807F-A276490B1E39@apple.com> <0e6001c908a2$b8fcf700$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <F0E4B018-AA5E-4344-A40B-3F6D974B7EA1@apple.com> <001b01c908ac$2b7d5140$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E93359@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <05ad01c90922$854aa710$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <FD70B36F-FCD4-4BC4-9368-C0BEE1B162F0@apple.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E93603@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boein! g.com> <2A58BE0C-25 10-4C8C-8F34-A4FDAE440A1C@apple.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E936B6@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Subject: RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:45:54 -0700
Message-ID: <0ea601c90a31$60b093f0$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: AckJUlCjHnT6zbNfR5aIDp5qBKdi2wAASiqgADdKxxA=
In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104E936B6@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1915; t=1220053555; x=1220917555; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; 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=20But=20are=20we=20talking=20IPv6=20only? =20That's=20how=20I=20read=20the=20draft.=20(Re=3A=20Some=20 suggestions=20for=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03) |Sender:=20; bh=UfchaRqwO0o4IuWr0+HNg71VjTTx1yYV3gDdQy30WVg=; b=JG3txt2YzJP8BBkHS0iLrY8XrNrOSqYSIP/PhGUttkioRloGP6Ce6aw/lB PrRQUMG/hVr4qZ/qAAlz5IVovyB89ZHWGhfDmQQK1soowG7HOW8RwwBZwvOB a+VO6i6MV4;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] 
> >Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:50 PM
> >To: IPv6 Operations
> >Subject: Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read 
> >the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for 
> >draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
> >
> >On Aug 28, 2008, at 13:05, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >> [I wrote:]
> >>>
> >>> The minimum set of models I think we should consider are..
> >>>
> >>> A) CPE is a router connected to a native IPv6 service 
> provider with
> >>> prefix delegation.  Note: this includes dual-stack-lite CPE, as
> >>> currently proposed.
> >>>
> >>> B) CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider where
> >>> IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default route to
> >>> the public
> >>> default-free zone, e.g. 6to4, tunnel-broker, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Are there *any* other realistic models to consider for 
> residential  
> >>> CPE?
> >>
> >> CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider
> >> where IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default
> >> route to a border gateway for the service provider, e.g.,
> >> ISATAP (with private IPv4 address on the CPE's provider-
> >> facing interface).
> >
> >
> >Please correct me if I'm wrong... that's just B) where the 
> >tunnel is ISATAP.  Right?
> 
> The distinction being drawn between B) and this (call it C),
> I guess) is that C) entails a private IPv4 address on the
> CPE provider-facing interace; not a public one.

Both SNAT and Dual-Stack Lite also give private IPv4 addresses
to the CPE.  Figure 1 of draft-droms-softwires-snat-01.txt shows 
the CPE being given a 10.0.0.1 address (RFC1918).  
Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of draft-durand-dual-stack-lite-00.txt 
discuss a Carrier Grade NAT; I expect the IPv4 addresses between
the IPv4 (half of the) CPE and the CGN would be private 
addresses.

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email