Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-grand-01 - additional security concerns

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted, et al,

We’ve tried to address it with SEND, but that hasn’t gotten any traction in the market.

I think that means that either SEND was ahead of its time and the market for it is only
now beginning to materialize, or SEND is somehow broken and should be deprecated.
I am interested to know which, since I believe I see a role for SEND.

Thanks - Fred


From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 8:13 AM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]>
Cc: v6ops list <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-grand-01 - additional security concerns




On Jul 30, 2020, at 6:26 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]<mailto:pthubert=[e-mail]>> wrote:
I support GRAND because it is better than nothing and progressing just that at 6MAN seems to be an incredible achievement already.

Indeed.  GRAND seems like a thing that one would be tempted to add to a stack even in the absence of a draft describing it. Having a draft that describes how to do it is better, because we can then have a discussion of what the benefits and drawbacks are, and mitigate the drawbacks. This concern about ND security seems like a useless digression: yes, ND is not secure, we know this. We’ve tried to address it with SEND, but that hasn’t gotten any traction in the market.

Are we seeing L2 attacks on ND in the wild? What’s the threat model? If this is a real concern, let’s confront it head-on, rather than trying to address it piecemeal.