Hi all, Here is some of my considerations on the second question.
I think the problem described in this document is different from that of split tunneling. Some reasons below: 1) It describes a compromise of a VPN. 2) It results from a particular interaction between both IP protocol families. Hope it clarifies. Thanks. Best wishes -- ============================================== Qiong Sun China Telecom Beijing Research Institute Open source code: lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/ <http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/>* PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ <http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/> * =============================================== From: OPSEC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of joel jaeggli Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:57 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; opsec chairs Subject: [OPSEC] draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages - clarifying questions from the IESG. Hi, I hope that you folks are recovering well from IETF meeting related excesses and accompanying travel. Some questions came up in the IESG review of the document that are more appropriately answered by the working group rather than by me attempting to channel you folks. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages/ 1. Does the working-group view view disabling IPV6 in deployed equipment due to operational necessity as a desirable outcome. 2. Does the working-group characterize the problem of vpn leakages captured in this document as being distinct from the problems posed by split-tunnels in general. Your thoughts would be appreciated. joel
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
