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> Thu, 28 August 2008 00:18 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 217A23A69F7 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.375
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, 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 UV+JtL48+l+C for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252C53A69D2 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KYV7e-000IG9-2O for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:12:22 +0000
Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dwing@cisco.com>) id 1KYV7Z-000IFC-IL for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:12:20 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,283,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="70262290"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2008 00:12:14 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7S0CExh003539; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:12:14 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7S0C0Yk010985; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:12:13 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'james woodyatt' <jhw@apple.com>, 'Mark Smith' <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>
Cc: '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>
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: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:12:00 -0700
Message-ID: <0e6001c908a2$b8fcf700$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: AckIeQx34bYnJ43URXqaxYjmrbaHUwAJ5LVw
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
In-Reply-To: <CD947C45-58F7-47F1-807F-A276490B1E39@apple.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=931; t=1219882334; x=1220746334; 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=OoNY9zcXQd5QG2vb6Mb1iraoHZD5CP0y0qQB4ZGoxKI=; b=Lv6ZoNvYWo4VFBszHTKaVo82mKVid7irqd6tSVdtmrn7vlBz5ESpAgF8OH 8oRUk055PqF5sriQugdEg3LTgVslvlFnEwhoj/ucQDMNt4bGjdemGms/uKaO cn34QwfiW+;
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>

> On Aug 27, 2008, at 03:17, Mark Smith wrote:
> > * Native IPv6 CPE security, plus IPv4 security/functionality
> > requirements to support IPv6 transition via IPv4 tunnelling
> 
> It was my understanding that this is the proper scope, not the  
> alternatives you mentioned.

If the scope includes IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels, then there are two 
network topologies:

  1.  CPE gets a single IPv4 address and is an IPv4 NAPT, or
  2.  the residential user gets one IPv4 address for each 
      device in their home that wants to do a IPv6-over-IPv4 
      tunnel.

If (1), I don't see how unsolicited incoming packets can be
directed to the correct host behind the IPv4 NAPT.

If (2), we are outside the realm of simple residential networks -- they only
have one IPv4 address.  We can't plan for more to become common as we approach
IPv4 exhaustion.


Is there another network topology that I am missing?

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email