Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Wed, 27 August 2008 19:05 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 111D33A6933 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.495 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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ZmWFmE8-mxxP for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E8C3A6918 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KYQGy-0001lN-JF for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:01:40 +0000
Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <jhw@apple.com>) id 1KYQGu-0001ko-Mx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:01:38 +0000
Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E3B38814D3 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 8BD802809D for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1180711d-a1ff5bb000000ece-78-48b5a48f2d98
Received: from il0602f-dhcp90.apple.com (il0602f-dhcp90.apple.com [17.206.50.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 4897728088 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <CAB50075-61A4-4F2D-A333-205DC937F88E@apple.com>
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080825210815.b3444f94.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1)
Subject: Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:01:35 -0700
References: <20080824204553.08131c65.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <48B1CCE8.1070305@gmail.com> <20080825210815.b3444f94.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
On Aug 25, 2008, at 04:38, Mark Smith wrote: > > OTOH, if the draft is also covering firewalling requirements to allow > IPv6 over IPv4, then I support what you're saying for that scenario. > If > the draft is covering IPv6 over IPv4 methods and therefore the > consequent IPv4 firewalling requirements, then I think that needs to > be > made more obvious in the draft. Point noted. It needs to be more obvious in the draft. > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:04:40 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> How about referring to draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns? >> We should probably concentrate those issues in one place. > > I certainly agree, I haven't yet come across that draft. I'll have a > look at it. I plan to do that when I import the Teredo heuristic from its earlier [expired] draft. A new draft should be available soon (end of the week?) I hope. -- james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> member of technical staff, communications engineering
- 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