IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 25 August 2008 21:06 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 C47D328C532 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.166
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.753, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 X1trl84mWB89 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EE928C507 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KXjCG-000EbK-Fw for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:01:56 +0000
Received: from [74.125.44.29] (helo=yx-out-2324.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>) id 1KXjCC-000Eaj-TY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:01:54 +0000
Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so996929yxb.71 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=23kKztullgULE9nWfV8xMkoAK7C8k+o5lIH3OjE7c0E=; b=YVfyILlxsTUnTGhpLxAEisrGn0/cyhv5by4whdAqv82A2UHfLDSPNIqRiVPDU3THVq BQaQ/TtGdzxYeNyRUxspsMn1pbPZD+X2MdADwoLooLlBXo0/lYHXxqw5IkyVUI5iwp2c 80XZ/Oxa3mhB/dxuhY2KHj1aLQ+EW6YiQ2xzY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=AjTOGcSMlJzrqzplvuuriaBn08KnQkgItqQxd4iZdvAC/se2vFKDWkrjJ2fp3TJ69G RtYnFIbPJW5lj7syycu5ViyYV9D30ci+a3v55C+6KZWJSxxY55DoAdu6/YoW+18dG/PT VfyPNTYfL4wAY7lER0h+YYCpB2fg38nTWxt7s=
Received: by 10.115.18.1 with SMTP id v1mr3986017wai.81.1219698110970; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k21sm7006542waf.8.2008.08.25.14.01.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48B31DA3.6080001@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:01:23 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
CC: 'Mark Smith' <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>, jhw@apple.com, 'IPv6 Operations' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03
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>
In-Reply-To: <01cd01c90672$a57c8790$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On 2008-08-25 17:23, Dan Wing wrote:
>>> 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?
>> If a host behind the CPE chooses to set up an IPv6 tunnel to
>> an IPv6-supporting ISP, I don't see that the tunnel is anybody's
>> business but the host's. So yes, in that case I think the CPE
>> should step back, because the host *is* soliciting incoming
>> packets.
> 
> But in that case, the host behind the CPE initiated the 
> communication to the tunnel.  For that to work, I do not
> believe it requires the CPE to allow unsolicited *incoming* 
> traffic from the Internet (as currently written in 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03.txt R19, R20, and R21).

How does it know that a Protocol 41 packet is unsolicited?
An IPv4 router takes no part in IPv6 tunnel setup. Either it
allows Protocol 41 or it doesn't, as far as I can see.

Note, I'm not talking about *-in-IPv6 tunnels.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email