IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops discussion

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 04:00 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 C31E93A6884 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.715, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 N4hq2Bad6TFy for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29033A67AE for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1ObQMi-0000aO-5A for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:53:04 +0000
Received: from [74.125.83.52] (helo=mail-gw0-f52.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>) id 1ObQMf-0000Ze-LI for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:53:01 +0000
Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17so5419536gwj.11 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2BcQt1gp9YOsZG9ZPZ84yWaKDotd94lGkcTGO201ffA=; b=dPonw6ssXopjvQgur7AQeVD4v9elrKVMfbzn0Fab9DQHwDsT1gg0LU9ME5szqt5lZX 86Z30IHHyzf1q+muO1Owv4fpmys5DaGmaHoMk55fuWLQ9y+KBbnmQc3/9K5Vvzylqsa2 eBAX8wF+wlcfK0Wf8PaKZJMZ8WCwe3i5bj89w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Zx5kl+2/JizihYoidzVtMgSVvW/GTVt6JapChGu/hJyKsHTFdSW7kaOf1m6JCh8lp/ UDglPtfFliQUeZDgM7yM9H73c+FFcTXvBoSQysLHCpMQ/9Vcv04mazY91LOIyjvY7PIB CRGQx0wBPxvcp8eBtAfBzTFu93E+5PfDlZEL0=
Received: by 10.151.59.13 with SMTP id m13mr1623164ybk.94.1279684358328; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m11sm7441701ybn.4.2010.07.20.20.52.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C466F0C.90309@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:52:44 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops discussion
References: <1975C274-CE6B-4A20-B6EE-87CE995CA8E6@cisco.com> <4C45171D.8090506@gmail.com> <A80AF5F8-5CE5-4E08-BFD9-8B1E4EC710AB@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A80AF5F8-5CE5-4E08-BFD9-8B1E4EC710AB@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On 2010-07-21 05:41, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> The draft doesn't recommend a choice of technique. I think that for the work to go forward, the WG would need to agree on a recommendation. Otherwise, the world will shrug its shoulders.
> 
> Following up on Brian's excellent review. Let's discuss this. In view of draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines and draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns, do we need this draft? Should we prefer it to one of the others? Is there something specific we would like this document to recommend?


The word 'loop' does not occur in draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns, from
which I deduce that draft-nakibly covers a disjoint problem space. I suppose
in theory the two documents could be merged, but from a practical viewpoint
it seems better to keep them separate.

Also, I think draft-nakibly is too specific to consider it as really
intersecting with draft-arkko. Whatever models we recommend in draft-arkko,
some people will be running automatic tunnels for years, so the exposure
to loops will exist. Actually it seems that the Security Considerations
in draft-arkko should perhaps refer to draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns
and to draft-nakibly.

My $0.02

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email