What information do we have from the real world about deployability?

It would be foolish to mandate something that doesn't work well.

   Brian

On 2009-07-23 16:03, [email protected] wrote:
> Hesham,
> 
> I agree with you, the Node cannot know this, it can only do the right thing 
> once the SeND process starts. Do people feel that SeND should be a basic 
> feature of IPv6 that all nodes SHOULD support?
> 
> John 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext 
> Hesham Soliman
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:46 PM
> To: Laganier, Julien; Thomas Narten; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Issue 13 - CGA/SeND support
> 
> Looks good in general, but I'm not sure if the host can always determine the 
> nature of the link or the level of security available on that link. It can 
> probably infer (sometimes inaccurately) but it's not laways possible to know. 
> 
> I agree with the SHOULDs and the intention of the MAY, I just don't know if a 
> host knows enough to decide about the MAY.
> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
> On 23/07/09 12:59 PM, "Laganier, Julien" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Just for the sake of getting the discussion started, I drafted some 
>> text we can discuss:
>>  
>>    Secure Neighbor Discovery [RFC3971] SHOULD be supported.  [RFC4861] 
>> states:
>>
>>       Cryptographic security mechanisms for Neighbor Discovery are outside
>>       the scope of this document and are defined in [RFC3971].
>>
>>    Secure Neighbor Discovery [RFC3971] SHOULD be used when physical security
>>    on the link is not assured.  [RFC3971] states:
>>
>>       The SEND protocol is designed to counter the threats to NDP.  These
>>       threats are described in detail in [22].  SEND is applicable in
>>       environments where physical security on the link is not assured (such
>>       as over wireless) and attacks on NDP are a concern.
>>
>>    Secure Neighbor Discovery [RFC3971] MAY be disabled when the link is
>>    point-to-point and link-layer security is assured, including mutual
>>    authentication of the link end-points and data origin integrity 
>> protection.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> --julien
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
>>> Of Thomas Narten
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:36 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Node Requirements: Issue 13 - CGA/SeND support
>>>
>>> Tim Chown <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> What about CGA/SeND support?  I can't see any reference to this
>>>> currently.   Should there be?   It's often waved as the answer to
>>>> make rogue RAs 'go away', so perhaps we should.
>>> I agree we need to have a section that addresses this topic.
>>>
>>> If no one suggests text, I'll take a stab.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to