-Original Message-
From: John Day [mailto:jeanj...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:30 AM
To: Dmitry Anipko; Ronald Bonica; Ole Troan; ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg
Subject: RE: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
A second thought.
Really all you have to do
/verify ICMPv6 PTB
messages; then many fragment-related issues would probably be solved in advance.
--
Tassos
Ole Troan wrote on 28/02/2013 21:51:
Hi,
The draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id document has been discussed a few
times.
At the IETF84 (minutes attached below), and in the thread
: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:52 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg
Subject: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
Hi,
The draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id document has been
discussed a few times.
At the IETF84 (minutes attached below), and in the thread:
http://www.ietf.org
steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
Ole,
There may exist at least one attack scenario that is sufficiently
serious to motivate this work. I will describe the scenario and
invite DNSSEC and security types to correct me if I have it all
wrong.
Name Servers running DNSSEC
Le 2013-03-10 19:53, John Day a écrit :
It doesn't take long to cycle through sending 65K messages. You only
need to send one fragment per identifier.
But we're talking about IPv6, where it's 32 bits.
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and smart -- http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64
-wg
Subject: RE: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
Ole,
There may exist at least one attack scenario that is sufficiently
serious to motivate this work. I will describe the scenario and invite
DNSSEC and security types to correct me if I have it all wrong.
Name Servers
To: ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg
Subject: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
Hi,
The draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id document has been discussed
a few times.
At the IETF84 (minutes attached below), and in the thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ronald
Bonica
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 2:54 PM
To: Ole Troan; ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg
Subject: RE: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
Ole,
There may exist at least one attack scenario that is sufficiently serious to
motivate this work. I will describe
In message fb329d818c7cab438f0c7dd772ea102506246...@tk5ex14mbxc252.redmond.cor
p.microsoft.com, Dmitry Anipko writes:
In such an attack, is the attacker on the path between the victim and the ser
ver? If yes, there are more efficient ways how they can DoS the victim. If no
, how does the
Dimitri,
Please find my responses in-line...
On 03/10/2013 07:07 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote:
In such an attack, is the attacker on the path between the victim and
the server?
No.
If yes, there are more efficient ways how they can DoS
the victim. If no, how does the attacker know which of
, March 08, 2013 9:48 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
Le 2013-02-28 20:51, Ole Troan a ?crit :
- Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
(if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)
Yes,
Someone said: Why do
Hi
On 28/02/2013 17:51, Ole Troan wrote:
Hi,
The draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id document has been discussed a few
times.
At the IETF84 (minutes attached below), and in the thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg15836.html
Could we get the working groups
I support progressing this draft, and I'm happy
to help if that would be useful.
I don't understand why/how this draft became
stalled, but I'd like to see it move along.
Yours,
Ran
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Le 2013-02-28 20:51, Ole Troan a écrit :
- Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
(if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)
Yes.
I think the document is very useful. The fact that there are so many
popular implementations out there that get this kind of thing
Simon,
- Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
(if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)
Yes.
I think the document is very useful. The fact that there are so many popular
implementations out there that get this kind of thing wrong shows a need for
good
Le 2013-03-07 11:09, Ole Troan a écrit :
Simon,
- Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
(if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)
Yes.
I think the document is very useful. The fact that there are so many popular
implementations out there that get this kind
Ole,
On 03/07/2013 07:09 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
- are you willing to work on the document?
I'm really curious about these questions.
What does working on a document mean? For instance, it's probably the
first time I see this question asked when polling the wg for support of
a document.
-
Le 2013-03-07 11:28, Fernando Gont a écrit :
What does working on a document mean? For instance, it's probably the
first time I see this question asked when polling the wg for support of
a document.
It's common. I understand it to mean reviewing the draft, providing
comments, etc.
That
Simon,
What does working on a document mean? For instance, it's probably the
first time I see this question asked when polling the wg for support of
a document.
It's common. I understand it to mean reviewing the draft, providing comments,
etc.
yes.
That aside, this document aims to
On 03/07/2013 08:02 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
That aside, this document aims to update RFC 2460. Where else should
that be done, if not in 6man??
That's a technicality. What's more important is that the relevant expertise
is in 6man.
when this document was presented in 6man at IETF84, there
On 03/07/2013 06:16 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
may I suggest you keep ranting to a minimum.
Have you counted how many emails I have sent you off-list regarding this
and other I-Ds? Have you noted how many times I had to ask you simply to
poll the wg about adoption of this document?
when this
systems, so why not correct this?
I think this topic deserves further discussed
regards
Juan Antonio Matos
Dominican Civil Aviation Institute
1. Re: 6MAN Agenda for IETF86 (Fernando Gont)
2. Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
(Simon Perreault)
3
support this draft.
Thank you,
Tina
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole
Troan
Sent: 2013年2月28日 11:52
To: ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg
Subject: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
Hi,
The draft-gont-6man
Hi,
The draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id document has been discussed a few
times.
At the IETF84 (minutes attached below), and in the thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg15836.html
Could we get the working groups opinion on what to do with the document
Folks,
draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id has been around for a while. It
was presented for the first time at the IETF 83 (Paris), and revised
according to the comments received. It was then presented at IETF 84
(Vancouver)... but the working group was never polled for WG adoption.
At IETF
I personally like the idea of making it a standard, just to have it as a
reference for future IPv6 implementations.
imho, security related issues should preferably be solved by changing
the protocol, unless it's too much work; strict recommendations should
then be given.
We had a hard time in
26 matches
Mail list logo
