Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09

Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com> Fri, 05 March 2010 03:07 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 20B403A8E7D for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:07:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 an1XoOOccl37 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B114F3A89E2 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1NnNql-000OWg-Re for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:05:15 +0000
Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mbaugher@cisco.com>) id 1NnNqk-000OWP-3A for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:05:14 +0000
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,585,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="491938130"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2010 03:05:13 +0000
Received: from sjc-mbaugher-8713.cisco.com (sjc-mbaugher-8713.cisco.com [10.19.93.36]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2535DfR020525; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 03:05:13 GMT
Subject: Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <929CA789-3B68-4B60-A623-311D072B4F17@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:05:12 -0800
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C134034B-DA31-4F94-A06E-419AC0000733@cisco.com>
References: <D6F5ACD2-EB43-477E-9F48-AC3EDB3F7EB4@apple.com> <0E826480-B510-4907-9F38-6119C0D7523B@cisco.com> <929CA789-3B68-4B60-A623-311D072B4F17@cisco.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

>> 
>> 2. Rec-42.  Pardon me if I'm being dense, but what are you saying here?  That service providers cannot manage the device from an exterior interface?
> 
> I should hope they couldn't without the network administration actively doing something to permit them to. As we have discussed privately, a protocol that enables an entity outside my administrative domain to control equipment witin my administrative domain without my explicit authorization is a security issue.

That's right.  And the sentence is clear as it is written.  I misread it.

Mark