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

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

> 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?

The same way it knows a non-protocol 41 packet is solicited: the
host sends a packet first -- the host being protected by the CPE 
doing Simple Security.

-d

> 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