Eric, On 02/03/2018 02:08, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > There are a lot of changes in the -13 version, many minor and a couple of > bigger ones (such the ULA section). A new author, Enno Rey, has joined the > team and has provided a tremendous amount of suggestions/changes. We also > have acted on the comments from Ole Troan, Ron Bonnica, Bernie Volz, Fernando > Gont and Erik Kline. > > As usual you can compare the versions with: > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-13.txt > > The authors will welcome reviews and comments especially on the new section > 2.1.2 (Use of ULAs): this 'ugly' topic needs to be in this document and no > author wants to recommend it obviously ;-)
I don't see anything ugly in the new text of 2.1.2; it is neutral and accurate. (There are specialised use cases for ULAs such as draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane, but I don't think it's necessary to mention them here.) > One open point is what to do with 'mostly obsolete' tunneling such as Teredo > and 6to4 ? Ole wants to remove those sections completely but the authors feel > that we need to keep them to be exhaustive. I agree with the authors. Also, you say: "Teredo is now mostly never used and it is no more automated in most environment, so, it is less of a threat." I was amazed recently to discover that this statement is untrue. I refer to fully updated Windows 10 Home laptops (two of them) which came up with an active Teredo interface that I had to disable. Actually, such a statement is more true of 6to4 today, which I think nobody configures by default. > Same for the CGN (NAT444) section, not really an IPv6 topic, but an important > related-one and the document is in OPSEC WG (which is protocol version > agnostic). However, the scope of the draft is "IPv6 Networks" so this really does seem out of scope to me. Brian _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
