RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:46 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I believe this document is of operational utility. 
> 
> Few comments/questions:
> - 3.2.2. describes, as per RFC4787, that UDP mappings MUST 
> NOT expire in less than two minutes. As I don't know the 
> backgrounds of this decision,

It is probably from REQ-5 of 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4787#section-4.3.

> I wonder why the minimum time 
> could not be longer for IPv6? The longer the time the less 
> need to activate radio for keep-alive sending (on either side 
> of the firewall btw - consider a case where CPE has wireless 
> WAN). In CGN case short timeout is understandable due need to 
> save public ports, but that probably is not an issue in 
> simple IPv6 firewall. So why e.g. not two hours as for TCP?

Two hours seems a long time to leave your door open.  

A longer timeout could be negotiated between the the host and its CPE router
using whatever protocol exists and becomes a defacto standard on IPv6 networks
(e.g., draft-woodyatt-ald, UPnP IGD version 2).

-d

> - 3.2.5. Just to check that DSMIP6 is considered as one of 
> these other tunneling protocols mentioned in R22? How about 
> MIP6 route optimization, will that work through a device 
> implementing this specification?
> - 3.4 says it remains to be seen if UPnP:IGD is to be 
> extended for IPv6. I would rather say that IPv6 is being 
> added to UPnP:IDG2. See: 
> "http://www.upnp.org/resources/documents/UPnPIGD2vsIGD1d100320
> 09.pdf  "UPnP Gateway committee: IGD:2 improvements over IGD:1"
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 	Teemu
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [e-mail] 
> >[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Fred Baker
> >Sent: 15 April, 2009 18:27
> >To: IPv6 Operations
> >Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC
> >
> >This is to initiate a two week working group last call of 
> >draft-ietf- v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04. Please read it now. 
> >If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording 
> >changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater 
> >issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding 
> >additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your 
> >comments to the list.
> >
> >We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of 
> >the document as well as its content. If you have read the 
> >document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is 
> >also an important comment to make.
> >
> >