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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 25 August 2008 22:09 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 45D2E28C0F7 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.464, 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 6x4Oll52xWn0 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7C028C0DF for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KXkDv-000Pf2-0B for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:07:43 +0000
Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dwing@cisco.com>) id 1KXkDq-000Pds-Bx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:07:40 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,266,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="77990875"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2008 22:07:33 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7PM7XJt031405; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:07:33 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 (dhcp-128-107-163-117.cisco.com [128.107.163.117]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7PM7X0b011635; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:07:33 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Mark Smith' <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>, jhw@apple.com, '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>
Subject: RE: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:07:33 -0700
Message-ID: <084c01c906fe$f9bf1840$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: AckG/e0Ix+MU2dpgR76iVFBaYbNvWgAAFESw
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
In-Reply-To: <48B32B43.5010103@gmail.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1152; t=1219702053; x=1220566053; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; 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=20Some=20suggestions=20for=20draft-ietf-v 6ops-cpe-simple-security-03 |Sender:=20; bh=jcncRB1lxd4iSPPZXwU1OYieMf6Pj28WHRiVtLqmNWY=; b=mnpJavnKXIfLomZgcn2rLkpB1fFC8i5cz3kdFKrimffL0tUc08xgTI0k/e vr569UHe4j1MrHjfw5Pfk0TiXuH2IsMJ1nowGlQQ9Ej0pl7mhute2g3c+1GD CNCMO57bY2;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

> >> 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.
> 
> How does that work if Host A (behind the CPE) has informed Host X
> (outside) of the tunneled address of Host B (also behind the CPE)?
> In other words A has solicited X to send a packet to B.

The network diagram would look like this, I believe:

              +-----+
    Host A ---+     |
              + CPE +--------- Internet ------  Host X
    Host B ---+     |
              +-----+
 

If the CPE is providing security -- as this draft is titled -- the
traffic from X to B would be blocked.  

To permit such traffic, B would need a way to tell the CPE to allow 
such traffic from X (or to allow arbitrary traffic from any host 
on the Internet).  This is described in Section 3.4 of 
draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03 (where James mentions 
Apple's ALD") but, to my knowledge, has not received much 
attention and I do not know if it has working group consensus.

-d