On 3/26/10 6:33 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
[added V6OPS list]
On Mar 26, 2010, at 08:11, Ole Troan wrote:
Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router
l firewall" is nowhere to be found.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
james woodyatt
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:34 PM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: IPv6 v6ops
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
[added
James,
>> indeed, apart from the fact that it does not/will not make any
>> recommendation about default on or off.
>
> If the editors of I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router would like to host the
> debate over whether or not to make such a recommendation, then that would
> make me very, very happy
Once again, this is a v6ops topic, so this will be my last comment
here on the 6man list:
On 2010-03-27 04:53, Perkins, Carroll G wrote:
> In all of these discussions, I am amazed that no one has mentioned that NIST
> has written a set of IPv6 implementation requirements for all US manufactured
[added V6OPS list]
On Mar 26, 2010, at 08:11, Ole Troan wrote:
>> Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
>> week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
>> carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router draft has the following security
>> requ
12 AM
To: STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
> Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
> week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
> carnage.
> Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
> week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
> carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router draft has the following security
> requirements in section 4.4:
>
> S-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD suppo
etf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:12 AM
> To: frnk...@iname.com
> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
>
> Frank,
>
> You obviously haven't been tracking the current discussion
> o
Frank,
You obviously haven't been tracking the current discussion
on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security on the v6ops list,
which is where the cpe-router draft belongs anyway.
I suggest that you read that thread.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-03-26 18:25, Frank Bulk wrote:
> There was som
There was some discussion on arin-ppml regarding ULA-C which led to talking
about NAT and it's role.
One point that rose out of that discussion is that most consumers will
presume, because they have NAT today, some kind of stateful firewall in
their shiny new IPv6 router. Section 3.1 of the curre
10 matches
Mail list logo
