Hi Alain,
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:41:37 +0800
Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latest draft: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-00.txt
still lists IPsec as mandatory to implement.
As I mentioned last IETF meeting, this is creating a problem for certain
kind of devices, like cable modems,
Hi Alain,
you raise the existential question about the security (except for
dedicated security services like VPN): why to pay for something that
might be never used? :)
This is exactly the same problem I have today with airbags in the
cars: I pay them when I buy a car (i.e. cost), I cannot
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NIST's goal was probably, some implementations on the field just
support static and maybe RIPng. We want to mandate something more
scalable, and OSPFv3 is as good an option as any.
I completely agree. And, if the
Hi Albert,
Instead of mandating every protocol, would it be helpful to further
break the functionality into two subclasses and have seperate
requirements in such cases. I do not like the idea of having to impose
a superset of the requirements for all such nodes.
In my view such functionality
-Original Message-
From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:58 AM
To: Manfredi, Albert E
Cc: Pekka Savola; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Updates to Node Requirements-bis (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hi Albert,
Instead of mandating every protocol, would
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
John-
Is there also anyway the new node requirements RFC could be somewhat
reconciled with the new US Government IPv6 Profile and the DoD IPv6 Profile?
It would probably keep the confusion down a bit.
01010011 01100101 01101101 0111 01100101
Jeremy,
Is there also anyway the new node requirements RFC could be
somewhat reconciled with the new US Government IPv6 Profile
and the DoD IPv6 Profile?
It would probably keep the confusion down a bit.
Would you be able to provide a summary of the differences? Also,
are the US Government
to Node Requirements-bis (UNCLASSIFIED)
Jeremy,
Is there also anyway the new node requirements RFC could be somewhat
reconciled with the new US Government IPv6 Profile and the DoD IPv6
Profile?
It would probably keep the confusion down a bit.
Would you be able to provide a summary
, Richard J CTR DISA JITC; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Updates to Node Requirements-bis (UNCLASSIFIED)
Jeremy,
Is there also anyway the new node requirements RFC could be somewhat
reconciled with the new US Government IPv6 Profile and the DoD IPv6
Profile?
It would probably keep the confusion
, Richard J CTR DISA JITC; Loughney John
(Nokia-OCTO/PaloAlto)
Subject: Re: Updates to Node Requirements-bis (UNCLASSIFIED)
I recently took a pass through both the USG and DoD documents
to identify differences. I am also planning to compare the
DoD doc against this draft. I will gladly share those
-Original Message-
From: Duncan, Richard J CTR DISA JITC
John-
I can give you the 2 documents:
DoD IPv6 Standards Profile, Version 2:
http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_product_profile_v2.pdf
US Government IPv6 Profile Version 1, Draft 2:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 26, 2008, at 5:24 AM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
One detail I'm not clear on is whether or why routers, which may
well be in non-secure spaces, are required to support ESP. I-D 4294-
bis doesn't elaborate - it just says nodes must.
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 26, 2008, at 1:03 AM, Duncan, Richard J CTR DISA JITC wrote:
Is there also anyway the new node requirements RFC could be
somewhat reconciled with the new US Government IPv6 Profile and the
DoD IPv6 Profile?
I find myself of two minds
The latest draft: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-00.txt
still lists IPsec as mandatory to implement.
As I mentioned last IETF meeting, this is creating a problem for certain
kind of devices, like cable modems, who have a very limited memory
footprint. Those devices operate in an environment where
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
One MUST that the NIST IPv6 Profile introduced was mandating of OSPFv3
as the routing protocol. Is this because RIPng is not beiong adopted in
practice? Small networks should do well with RIPng, I would think,
unless RIPng is never used in
15 matches
Mail list logo
