IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] control and security of DHCP

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 15 January 2014 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 8FAD01AE0E2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:32:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.738
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 bSKiM2zhNnnq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F541AE364 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id s0FFVoHv023084; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:31:50 -0600
Received: from XCH-PHX-109.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-109.sw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.36]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id s0FFVjrY023028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:31:45 -0600
Received: from XCH-BLV-201.nw.nos.boeing.com (10.57.37.66) by XCH-PHX-109.sw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:31:44 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.203]) by XCH-BLV-201.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.1.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:31:44 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] control and security of DHCP
Thread-Index: AQHPEeqixUfnEblz6kmhegwZf+ZskZqF6ZaQ
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:31:44 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831819C017@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCDA31A30EB1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz> <52CFB8D5.70900@gmail.com> <B54D5283-8880-434A-A3C0-9BFF0081E13B@gmail.com> <20140110.124610.74672987.sthaug@nethelp.no> <60C5513D-B8DA-48D6-82D3-53E148F9F7BA@gmail.com> <52D0157D.6040009@foobar.org> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401101651580.20074@uplift.swm.pp.se> <D1FC3C0B-CC5D-44BC-B753-2F1BD94A48FA@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr1C0jRNq-ta=HeGFusC8VFGGg1ffDFLoroUoiHmX-KYiA@mail.gmail.com> <52D18F22.1070708@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr2PrG_Rit2YCAkep4_-LUSqNpEU-t+ttRsLPpSbYVLoig@mail.gmail.com> <1389490607.51957.YahooMailNeo@web161904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <52D2A8EF.2040901@foobar.org> <52D4E794.3070109@globis.net> <52D57214.1070505@foobar.org> <52D57DC5.9080603@globis.net> <52D58413.3050506@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr2WMzfi0_s34h4Q2EiQp=YFor78hsUiB8fVbGMyojEU1Q@mail.gmail.com> <02C4DFC9-847B-47B9-84B3-99967FCF2DE2@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|a3d075fc053a7d251459ec8edca9e383q0EC8p03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|02C4DFC9-847B-47B9-84B3-99967FCF2DE2@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|a3d075fc053a7d251459ec8edca9e383q0EC8p03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|02C4DFC9-847B-47B9-84B3-99967FCF2DE2@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831819C017XCHBLV504nwnosboe_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Cc: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] control and security of DHCP
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: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:32:04 -0000

Hi, a /64 per customer (or maybe even a /56 or shorter) is what AERO expects.

Thanks - Fred

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:09 AM
To: Lorenzo Colitti
Cc: Ray Hunter; v6ops@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [v6ops] control and security of DHCP


On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:52, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com<mailto:lorenzo@google.com>> wrote:


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org<mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
> So what security are you suggesting to deploy to ensure that your set up
> remains sufficiently isolated between customers, even though they share a
> L2 LAN?
Right now?  I have nothing.  I can't deploy ipv6 without holes large enough
to drive trucks through.

You can't give every customer their own /64?

As a slight aside, we found that at certain vendors charge rather more for images with L3 functionality than for L2 functionality, so it costs more in real £££ to put /64 per interface.  So even if the device is capable of doing it, it's frustrating that there's a tiered pricing structure.  I'd rather the vendor recognised the potential change in IPv6 usage here and had price parity (on the lower price!).

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email