[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops as a WG item? (was Re: Agenda for 78th IETF)
Mark,
Thanks for the input. I'll be sure to address it in the next version.
Gabi
----- Original Message ----
> From: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
> To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Gabi Nakibly <gnakibly@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 1:48:06 AM
> Subject: Re: draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops as a WG item? (was Re: Agenda for
>78th IETF)
>
>
> It is important to document all issues, good and bad, with automatic
> tunneling, and we found Gabi's analysis useful with 6rd. As such, I
> support it becoming a WG document.
>
> However, one thing that is missing here is a sufficient discussion of
> the operational environment for which the automatic mechanisms mentioned
> are targeted or are deployed today. For example, 6rd is targeted at a
> certain domain of operation within an SP network, ISATAP is more
> commonly found within enterprise deployments, etc. As such, if we
> publish this as an IETF work, I think it at least needs a clear mention
> that such operational domain considerations are not a part of the
> analysis, or an expansion of scope to include them. Also, the real
> threat of tunnel loops is dependent upon where the loops can be launched
> and sustained (some loops are bad, some don't really matter), and other
> mitigations may exist outside of those described in the document when
> deploying an automatic tunneling mechanism that is not reachable on the
> open Internet.
>
> As for the mitigation recommendations described in the document, some
> are borderline protocol modifications (as they recommend filtering
> techniques beyond what is typically configurable by standard ACLs), and
> as such could be stepping out of charter a bit for v6ops. I would be far
> more comfortable with an Informational target with no normative text
> (and no text suggesting what kind of "simple" checks a router "can" do,
> but rather text suggesting what a router "could" in the event that some
> other router fails to do something else...).
>
> - Mark
>
>
> On 7/4/10 12:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> > Over to the list. Opinions?
> >
> > On Jul 3, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Gabi Nakibly wrote:
> >
> >> Fred,
> >> I would like to propose the adoption of the
> >> draft draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops as a WG item. The draft documents the
>
> >> routing loop attack and mitigation measures and practices as discussed on
>the
>
> >> list. I believe that the document contains some useful information for
>network
>
> >> operators who wishes to securely deploy IPv6 within an IPv4 network. The
> >> document falls under goal #2 of the WG charter:
> >>
> >> 2. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify potential security
> >> risks in the operation of shared IPv4/IPv6 networks, and document
> >> operational practices to eliminate or mitigate those risks.
> >>
> >> I will appreciate yours and the list's feedback.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Gabi
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> >>> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> >>> Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 9:55:41 AM
> >>> Subject: Agenda for 78th IETF
> >>>
> >>> I rather expected to get requests for
> >>>
> >>> draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation-01.txt
> >>> draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops-02.txt
> >>> draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps-03.txt
> >>> draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-01.txt
> >>>
> >>> What I have is the following.
> >>>
> >>> Those who want agenda time should please post drafts to support it and
>should
>
> >>> let me know. We were in fact given two slots in the initial agenda. If
>things
>
> >>> remain as they stand, I'll cut that back to one.
> >>>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> >>>> Date: June 24, 2010 5:33:31 AM PDT
> >>>> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> >>>> Subject: Agenda call
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone who wants time, please drop me a note.
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that the Secretariat and IESG are currently struggling with the
>agenda,
>
> >>> and we may very well wind up with one slot instead of two. I want to give
>all
>
> >>> the time needed for discussions we need to have, and not waste time arguing
>for
>
> >>> the second slot if we won't actually use it. So I really need to know this
>week.
> >>>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>>> From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
> >>>> Date: June 24, 2010 7:19:46 AM PDT
> >>>> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, "IPv6 Operations"
> >>> <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> >>>> Cc: "Ole Troan" <ot@cisco.com>, <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> >>>> Subject: RE: Agenda call
> >>>>
> >>>> Ole, Tim and myself would like few minutes on the harmful tunnels work.
> >>>> It is to be re-submitted very soon.
> >>>>
> >>>> G/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com>
> >>>> Date: June 24, 2010 5:51:55 AM PDT
> >>>> To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: Agenda call
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------ Forwarded Message
> >>>> From: Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com>
> >>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:09:06 -0700
> >>>> To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> >>>> Conversation: Looking for v6ops agenda items
> >>>> Subject: Re: Looking for v6ops agenda items
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Fred,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like 10 minutes please. Depending on the "agenda density", I
could
> >>>> use 5 more minutes for Q&A.
> >>>>
> >>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> -Rajeev
> >>>>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>>> From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
> >>>> Date: June 24, 2010 7:22:15 AM PDT
> >>>> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
> >>>> Cc: "Tony Hain (ahain)" <ahain@cisco.com>, "Chip Popoviciu (cpopovic)"
> >>> <cpopovic@cisco.com>
> >>>> Subject: RE: Agenda call
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Fred,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to ask 10 minutes time to discuss "IP protocol
> >>>> selection"... its not a draft yet, but the idea is out there and I just
> >>>> have to write it down... should be done rather soon once I get to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> G/
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>>> From: <Jason.Weil@cox.com>
> >>>> Date: June 27, 2010 11:39:30 AM PDT
> >>>> To: <fred@cisco.com>
> >>>> Cc: <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>, <tli@cisco.com>
> >>>> Subject: RE: Agenda call
> >>>>
> >>>> Fred,
> >>>>
> >>>> Tony Li, Marla Azinger and I would like a few minutes to discuss a CIDR
>for
>
> >>> IPv6 draft which is basically an update to RFC4632. It will be submitted to
>the
>
> >>> list shortly. Either Marla or I will be in attendance to present.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>