Re: On saving end-to-end transparency

[Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>]

For information: the IPv6 we have here is WITHOUT any filter (confirmed by the IETF NOC).
Does anyone report a security problem ;-) ?
RD

 
Le 23 mars 2010 à 06:32, Mohacsi Janos a écrit :

> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 08:32:38AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> That will have to be a working group decision. We have your opinion on the record.
>>> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Let's err on the side of our ideals here. Publish draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security, but do so without default-deny rules on by default. Let's not break end-to-end IPv6 before it even has a chance to grow up.
>> 
>> Add another opinion to that.
>> 
>> - have firewalling in there
>> - default to "end-to-end communication permitted"
> 
> Yes to have the firewalling capabilities in CPE (reflective session state if you like)
> Yes to be default end-to-end communication permitted - but could be switched to default to deny by the end users, if he or she prefers NAT like behaviour.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 		Janos Mohacsi
> 
>