Bob
DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction Problem Statement
draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt
I think this is a very important topic. Its impact might seem to fall
more in v6ops territory, and it also has relevance to mif and homenet,
but only 6man (IMHO) can fix
Dear All,
I am sorry, it took a while that I could revise and apply comments to the
draft. But, unfortunately there was not enough time to upload a new version
and I could just upload a version with a few revision. I would ask you again
to consider the presentation as it would be a great chance
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 16:02 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
A Simple Secure Addressing Generation Scheme for IPv6
AutoConfiguration
draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-01.txt
[...]
DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction Problem Statement
draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt
Bob,
The agenda shows an obsolete version for draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit-02.
The changes are significant!
Regards
Brian
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests:
Brian,
The agenda shows an obsolete version for draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit-02.
The changes are significant!
thanks, fixed.
cheers,
Ole
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests:
Dear All,
I would appreciate if you explain your criteria for assigning time slot to
the drafts while other drafts discussed on the mailing list too.
The recent discussion on the list about the following drafts that you
assigned the time slot.
draft-boucadair-6man-multicast-addr-arch : 3
Follow up
In my last email I asked about what criteria was being used because it seems
to me that giving time slots to some drafts and almost none to others wasn't
based on the criteria that you mentioned.
- none of the selected drafts which have been assigned a time slot are WG
drafts so this
Karl,
I definitely agree that ND needs to be secured. Also agree that neither IPSec
nor SEND are viable solutions.
I do not know if I am missing something but I have not seen a comprehensive
document with these problems detailed. I certainly don't have a solution but I
have been trying to
ND security is an important topic.
Let me explain why.
We consider the use of ND over 802.11p links for vehicular
communications. These links dont have ESSID nor link-layer security.
(it is not clear whether it is legal to run IP straight over 80211p,
being safety apps) but once it becomes
Dear Nalini,
Our draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-02 talks about a
solution for securing ND while also considering privacy. You can read this
version, however, I will be uploading the latest version on 11 March when
IETF is again open for submissions.
If after reading
In the latest version of my draft RFC,SSAS, l have provided information
about using SSAS for mobile nodes and I have specified the sections of the
RFCs that can use this mechanism. So maybe this can prove useful for
vehicular communication too.
Are the drafts that you mentioned discussed in 6man?
Hosnieh,
I will read and respond. Thank you for working on a solution to this
important problem.
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
(831) 659-8360
www.insidethestack.com
From: Hosnieh Rafiee i...@rozanak.com
To: 'Nalini Elkins'
Hosnieh,
I would have to read the draft and feed back about SSAS.
Some of the drafts I mentioned (ND-PD) were presented to 6MAN meeting in
Atlanta, and discussed on the email list. One of the drafts
(draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00) is considered at ISO, but I dont know its status.
Another draft
Guys,
I am going to go back and review IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and
Threats: RFC 3756
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3756/
For all who think that ND and RA in particular does not have problems, here is
a UTube video of a hacker at work using RA.
Dear Nalini,
Yes. That RFC is an old RFC that explained the most probable attacks that
could be used against ND. This is the main reason that ND is not at all
secure and the people who think that just privacy is enough (like what was
just implemented in windows) are making a big mistake.
In our
Hosnieh,
Very interesting! We ourselves are working on the same project! A toolkit to
help people protect themselves against IPv6 attacks. I think the time has
definitely come.
Please contact me offline if you would like to collaborate.
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
(831)
Karl == Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au writes:
Karl On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 16:02 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
A Simple Secure Addressing Generation Scheme for IPv6
AutoConfiguration draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-01.txt [...]
DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction Problem Statement
SASS is similar, but uses a different algorithm, and you don't have to
recalculate each time you move. For nodes that don't move, it seems
identical.
This is not true. I think that you have confused this draft with another
draft that was not about security but had the title Stable Privacy
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
To: Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: 6MAN Agenda for IETF86
Karl == Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au
writes:
Karl On Mon, 2013-03-04
On Mar 5, 2013, at 01:02, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
6LoWPAN Backbone Router
draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router-02.txt
That actually has received more discussion back in 2010...
(I think you want to point to -03.)
An earlier version of that draft received even more
Dear Mark,
I'm curious what the specific problem with SEND is. Is it the lack of
commonly available implementations, or the manual work to bootstrap it (IIRC
that is required), or both? The IETF obviously can't solve the former. If
it is the latter, I wonder if the Better-Than-Nothing model,
Carsten,
On Mar 5, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 01:02, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
6LoWPAN Backbone Router
draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router-02.txt
That actually has received more discussion back in 2010...
(I think you want to point
Dear Bob,
Thanks for the explanation. I would ask that you correct the version number
of my draft to 2 in the following link:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-6man . I would also ask
that I at least be given some time to explain the purpose of this draft and
the differences
Hosnieh,
On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
Dear Bob,
Thanks for the explanation. I would ask that you correct the version number
of my draft to 2 in the following link:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-6man .
Fixed.
I would also ask
that I at least be
Brian,
Since the one week working group last call ended yesterday on the zero checksum
documents and we didn't see any comments on the changes (other than the status
in the last call) in these two drafts on the mailing list, we think you can
proceed with advancing both of these documents to
25 matches
Mail list logo
