On 6/14/2011 5:32 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Joe,
Fair point about the draft-gont document. I've taken it out
for now.
Which was the 6man I-D you meant?
The one ref'd inside the draft-gont-v6ops doc - it's draft-gont-6man...
There aren't issues with the draft-ietf-6man docs.
Joe
The
Hi, all,
It'd be useful to wait until these docs (this v6ops one and the 6man one
it refers) are adopted by the relevant WGs before noting them in
recommendations to external parties, IMO.
Some of the recommendations in these documents are akin to "if I didn't
expect it, it's an attack", whi
On 14/06/2011 00:09, Stephen Farrell wrote:
* RFC 6105 – "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard"
* RFC 6106 – "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration", §7 in particular.
maybe mention draft-gont-v6ops-ra-guard-evasion? It's not a strategic
focused document, but giv
Stephen:
Comments below.
Russ
> From: IETF Security Area
> To: Study Group 17, Questions 2 and 3
> Title: Work on Security of IPv6
>
> FOR ACTION
>
> The IETF thanks Study Group 17 for its liaison LS-206 "Liaison on IPv6
> security issues". As the world transitions to IPv6, new opportunitie
Joe,
A suggestion just on this one point:
> I'd prefer to see the relevant WGs endorse these as useful ways
> forward before adding them to this list.
>
It is good for the IETF to provide the ITU's membership an opportunity
to comment either formally via the liaison process or informally as
ind
On 15 Jun 2011, at 01:42, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
>> RFC5157 IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning
>
> Personally, I think that RFC has been overtaken by events. Network scans have
> been reported in the wild.
I just re-read the abstract a
All,
On 15/06/11 01:42, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
>> RFC5157 IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning
>
> Personally, I think that RFC has been overtaken by events. Network scans have
> been reported in the wild.
Ok, that's not currently includ
On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> RFC5157 IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning
Personally, I think that RFC has been overtaken by events. Network scans have
been reported in the wild.
IETF IPv6 working gr
Hi Joe,
Fair point about the draft-gont document. I've taken it out
for now.
Which was the 6man I-D you meant? There are now two referenced
thanks to recent comments and both are draft-ietf-6man so have
presumably been adopted by the WG.
My current version is attached following today's edits in
Hi Stephen,
Please consider adding the following RFCs to the list.
RFC3756 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats
RFC4890 Recommendations for Filtering ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls
RFC4942 IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security Considerations
RFC5157 IPv6 Implications for Network
Thanks Nick,
I'll add that unless someone tells me its a bad plan.
Its a fairly fresh I-D, but I guess it looks pretty
relevant all right.
S.
On 14/06/11 11:00, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 14/06/2011 00:09, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> * RFC 6105 – "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard"
>> * RF
On 14 Jun 2011, at 05:51, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Russ,
>
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> Stephen:
>>
>> Comments below.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>>> From: IETF Security Area
>>> To: Study Group 17, Questions 2 and 3
>>> Title: Work on Security of IPv6
>>>
>>> FOR ACTION
>>>
Russ,
On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Stephen:
>
> Comments below.
>
> Russ
>
>
>> From: IETF Security Area
>> To: Study Group 17, Questions 2 and 3
>> Title: Work on Security of IPv6
>>
>> FOR ACTION
>>
>> The IETF thanks Study Group 17 for its liaison LS-206 "Liaison o
Thanks Russ, will make those changes.
S.
On 14/06/11 00:57, Russ Housley wrote:
> Stephen:
>
> Comments below.
>
> Russ
>
>
>> From: IETF Security Area
>> To: Study Group 17, Questions 2 and 3
>> Title: Work on Security of IPv6
>>
>> FOR ACTION
>>
>> The IETF thanks Study Group 17 for its li
All,
Thanks for the feedback on this liaison. Eliot (mostly)
and I (a bit) have tried to capture all that in the
text below. Please send any comments on that (with
specific alternative text) in the next week and then
we'll shoot it on to them.
RFC 3514 does have some words about IPv6 - should I
On 06/05/2011 12:10 AM, John Leslie wrote:
>> I think we'd like to respond to them that that's great,
>> and we'll be interested in their results, but can they
>> *please* come back to us before saying something should
>> be changed so's we can talk about it.
>
>I don't think that's quite rig
> From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 7:42 AM
> Sure. Feel free to send RFC numbers and we'll include
> some in the draft response that we'll circulate in a
> while. (So no need to spam everyone with those, just
On 05/06/11 21:30, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> I do not see why the ITU has to start from zero.
What Eliot said.
> There are several (or some at least) very good RFC and I+D documents related
> to IPv6 security.
Sure. Feel free to send RFC numbers and we'll include
some in the draft res
Arturo,
On 6/5/11 10:30 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> I do not see why the ITU has to start from zero. There are several (or
> some at least) very good RFC and I+D documents related to IPv6 security. I
> think we should recommend them to ITU, it is good that they let us know, it
> would be b
I do not see why the ITU has to start from zero. There are several (or
some at least) very good RFC and I+D documents related to IPv6 security. I
think we should recommend them to ITU, it is good that they let us know, it
would be better if they use our work as a foundation.
just my 2
BTW, in case it wasn't clear, I think the IETF should do that architecture.
On Jun 4, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> I think we'd like to respond to them that that's great,
>> and we'll be interested in their results, but can the
, 2011 11:10 PM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: Turner, Sean P.; v6...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org; Eliot
Lear
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ITU-T SG17 IPv6 security work items liaison
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I think we'd like to respond to them that that's
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I think we'd like to respond to them that that's great,
> and we'll be interested in their results, but can they
> *please* come back to us before saying something should
> be changed so's we can talk about it.
That seems like a reasonable pro
Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> We received a liaison [1] from ITU-T saying they're
> planning to start a couple of work items on the
> security of IPv6. As far as we know, they envisage
> developing a "technical guideline on deploying IPv6"
> and "Security Management Guideline for implementation
> of
Hi all,
We received a liaison [1] from ITU-T saying they're
planning to start a couple of work items on the
security of IPv6. As far as we know, they envisage
developing a "technical guideline on deploying IPv6"
and "Security Management Guideline for implementation
of IPv6 environment in telecomm
25 matches
Mail list logo
