IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 29 April 2014 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF7E1A094B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s_NzLtlpaDOb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837191A0740 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AB61B8055 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3B819005C; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:41:44 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <53601BED.4050200@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:41:35 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <37DC9152-EEE3-4EEF-81C7-AD5B6D0E9892@nominum.com>
References: <9B4139A3-77F7-4109-93AD-A822395E5007@nominum.com> <m24n1l8i1a.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <3BA3E5A3-4385-43CE-B73F-A0686AA31B4E@nominum.com> <m238gxpgrt.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <73221D87-5F50-4689-AA42-553AF757ABF5@nominum.com> <m2mwf59uht.wl%Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <7310412C-64E9-4A11-9812-92A969082131@nominum.com> <20140428190804.GK43641@Space.Net> <446A720E-1128-4FFF-BB3B-780EACA9610B@nominum.com> <535EBC20.10900@foobar.org> <20140428213045.GL511@havarti.local> <19B5B5AB-FF86-408B-8E73-D5350853965B@foobar.org> <3563D9EE-CD40-4E75-A1CB-C3FB50EEEBC4@nominum.com> <535F3624.4020801@foobar.org> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404290726011.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se> <535F3A8C.2050902@foobar.org> <E68028C1-2E6D-4D07-A113-60757457E286@nominum.com> <535F99A9.3030402@foobar.org> <0C03200E-B349-44D4-BE3F-512AD6A7A417@nominum.com> <535FCB2C.3030502@foobar.org> <8DB83B3D-D09C-4977-9B4F-75EA2DD3B71D@nominum.com> <53601BED.4050200@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_USx-tOEYaOLlQ-37FUGBI8OA8Y
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:41:48 -0000

On Apr 29, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> #3 means that the network operator must be trusted.

If you are referring to the proposal that a packet from one network be able to shut off IPv4 on another network, I agree that that is a bad idea.   This has been discussed at length on this thread, and the authors agree that that point needs to be reconsidered.

Fernando's draft actually suggests filtering ethertype 0x86DD in order to avoid RA attacks on switches that don't have RA guard, which is why I assumed that that was an option for IPv4-only networks that don't want to be affected by this proposal.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email