From watkins@hbp.com Wed Apr 1 13:44:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3076628C1E1; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:44:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VvFwfdfNp06C; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:44:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmp-224-13.ray.net.pl (zmp-224-13.ray.net.pl [89.174.224.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D7DF63A692A; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:43:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 90.184.72.128 by smtp.89.174.224.13; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:38:23 -0700 Message-ID: <4478fqc737SWNQtools-team@ietf.org> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:44:23 -0500 From: "Reyes Cameron" To: "Dominique Gutierrez" Subject: You and a Tag Heuer watch Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A fine designer watch says means refinement and money. A fine, non-expensive designer watch also means intelligence! http://www.deftdate.com/ At Diam0nd Reps we make it easy to get a Rolex, Cartier, Bvlgari or any brand name that you think of. As long as it is considered a high class watch, you will find it in our one of a kind store! http://www.deftdate.com/ With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From jen@a1absolutestorage.com Wed Apr 1 19:08:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB78B3A67C0 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:08:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.744 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.744 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wlrbMVm61xQs for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from static-71-249-242-71.nycmny.east.verizon.net (static-71-249-242-71.nycmny.east.verizon.net [71.249.242.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CD88D3A6B31 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:07:50 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Credit card expiration date From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090402020752.CD88D3A6B31@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From luitga@anchorhocking.com Thu Apr 2 02:14:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7FD3A6A5F for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 02:14:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.824 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98GUsz75exBp for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 02:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 114-152.63-81.stat.fixnetdata.ch (114-152.63-81.stat.fixnetdata.ch [81.63.152.114]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 09DF23A68DA for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 02:14:40 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Credit card expired From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090402091441.09DF23A68DA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 02:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From telnir@012.net.il Thu Apr 2 06:15:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A504328C0EE; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 06:15:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.753 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8GwMgPMJz-G; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 06:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 107.85-86-76.dynamic.clientes.euskaltel.es (107.85-86-76.dynamic.clientes.euskaltel.es [85.86.76.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D0AF53A6A5F; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 06:14:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 76.59.65.143 by smtp.85.86.76.107; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:11:02 -0400 Message-ID: <7168tj741943NVZtools-team@ietf.org> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:16:02 -0500 From: "Katharine Bowen" To: "Tisha Lindsey" Subject: Bvlgari watches wholesale all year long! Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit It's the perfect time to get that dream watch you've fantasized about. But there's no need to empty your bank account while doing it! http://www.dollfern.com/ Diam0nd Reps has it all: Rolex, Cartier, Tag Heuer, Breitling, and many more, for a fraction of the price of an original watch. And don't forget: when you order two watches, you get an extra 15 percent discount over our already low prices! http://www.dollfern.com/ Most experts couldn't tell our watches from the real thing, and neither will your friends, so impress them today get started with your watch shopping now! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 2 18:20:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D953A3A6971 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:20:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.959, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gry2owvl631I for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2FA3A68B1 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LpY0o-000JqB-2T for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:16:02 +0000 Received: from [209.85.146.182] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LpY0j-000Jpf-Bk for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:15:59 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so465047waf.9 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:15:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5RNQ6mTfjNGGD0Ni0X2urro6i8DjevsD42TwYVSXp/I=; b=vX73X1WcEQC1JU6OYMLGj5br4dFEOgHlktFzLQAuUq8vhbVba3p0IZ771RloAAdS5F thG5ENOWNhzuJMyfJ7U3Yp5+QruNjaAK/9lidd2hMf0+DtRZCF7wIq9riUiphDn11tpH vlO1yQTAVx+idkGwuazOm12lzqtQ0ZozxoeCQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ryWsIXMWEdKj+ob9Ra/MBDTowQxTqEBl2J8feSdqSJ6J0nVE4X4pxSSMEkP2BcoOeH F4cM6ghpiCX40Y5MYDFHxciw1H/QAJBRdP0UnA/rSK7HC/HhcaFBZMyf7ln+JHtqaYJW VytPGD2POZ5R4CbkRqGPiQ0fweOMQrQ9zV5H8= Received: by 10.114.183.20 with SMTP id g20mr286714waf.142.1238721356497; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c26sm1646526waa.50.2009.04.02.18.15.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D56370.8000009@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:16:32 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Stark, Barbara" CC: Alan Kavanagh , wbeebee@cisco.com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cisco.com Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B8FA@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B8FA@crexc41p> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-03-31 08:55, Stark, Barbara wrote: > Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each connected to a > different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). Each > SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a > walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers. > This walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the > Internet. This walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a > separate WAN connection, or it might not. > I don't think the IETF is in the business of making it easier for providers to set up walled gardens. Anyway, there's no reason a separate connection would be needed; this would presumably just be a perfectly normal IPv6 prefix that didn't happen to be routed on the global Internet. It would just be part of 0::/128 as far as the CPE is concerned. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 2 23:38:09 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1786D3A67D8 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:38:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.924, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JbzpGfXQ13Lp for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BCD3A6C20 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lpcxt-0004SP-S9 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:33:21 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lpcxo-0004S3-TG for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:33:18 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 06:33:16 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n336XG8g005337; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:33:16 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n336XDQe002076; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:33:16 GMT Cc: "Stark, Barbara" , Alan Kavanagh , wbeebee@cisco.com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cisco.com Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <49D56370.8000009@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:15:11 -0700 References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B8FA@crexc41p> <49D56370.8000009@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=292; t=1238740396; x=1239604396; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=/oggOn9HqvCujEWRXh26MFQqNwbu3czFDo+SdaZiU08=; b=gFUODYNg6qggyhT/GYOU9sKdHA8au6J/rMYwJJ4yDPuqXRBLp8vbmF8964 OPodcbsUBKsI495ibsWwe9In7WTAYp6JsNbwqeG9kp3W6b+rRt52GOevdAGl GWWdV7W8Fo; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't think the IETF is in the business of making it easier for > providers to set up walled gardens. I don't think the IETF is in the business of telling providers how to run their businesses, walled garden or otherwise. From advices@viceroy.com Fri Apr 3 02:05:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543C33A6868; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 02:05:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.145 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_REPLICA_ROLEX=3.157, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_TW=1.335, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, REPLICA_WATCH=3.396, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5MhYn2Ylofi; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 02:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 123-195-88-75.dynamic.kbronet.com.tw (123-195-88-75.dynamic.kbronet.com.tw [123.195.88.75]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 922A83A6968; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 02:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Buford Blevins" To: "Ella Zamora" Subject: You can save 80% on Patek Phillipe Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:06:33 -0500 Message-Id: How about making your friends jealous and saving a lot of money doing it? = Forget about spending thousands of dollars on a new Rolex watch! Instead, = visit the newly redesigned Diamond Replicas and buy yourself a beautiful, = one of a kind Rolex Datejust watch! http://risukoqef.cn/ Of course, we're talking about replica watches, not the overpriced origina= ls... After all, our Rolex Datejusts offer the same precise functionality = and exact look than their costly counterparts, but you can buy yours for j= ust a couple of hundred bucks. So, come aboard Diamond Replicas and take a= dvantage of our extensive collection of replica Rolex watches, our superb = customer service and our super low prices! http://risukoqef.cn/ From guykaja@yahoo.com Fri Apr 3 05:15:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E673A6CCD; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 05:15:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_REPLICA_ROLEX=3.157, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_TW=1.335, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, REPLICA_WATCH=3.396, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tLFl+84mWcHk; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 05:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 123-205-130-33.adsl.dynamic.seed.net.tw (123-205-130-33.adsl.dynamic.seed.net.tw [123.205.130.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ECAEE28C285; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 05:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Darius Chan" To: "Dorothy Phillips" Subject: Classic timepieces reps Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:16:13 -0500 Message-Id: How about making your friends jealous and saving a lot of money doing it? = Forget about spending thousands of dollars on a new Rolex watch! Instead, = visit the newly redesigned Diamond Replicas and buy yourself a beautiful, = one of a kind Rolex Datejust watch! http://tisevoziw.cn/ Of course, we're talking about replica watches, not the overpriced origina= ls... After all, our Rolex Datejusts offer the same precise functionality = and exact look than their costly counterparts, but you can buy yours for j= ust a couple of hundred bucks. So, come aboard Diamond Replicas and take a= dvantage of our extensive collection of replica Rolex watches, our superb = customer service and our super low prices! http://tisevoziw.cn/ From cahelp@sdcpdx.com Fri Apr 3 17:50:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5DB3A6932; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:50:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3D8vZF7queYk; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adsl196-137-186-206-196.adsl196-6.iam.net.ma (adsl196-137-186-206-196.adsl196-6.iam.net.ma [196.206.186.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 47BD53A68CF; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Earle Dickey" To: "Benjamin Lowe" Subject: Winter quality watches offer Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:51:49 -0500 Message-Id: A Breitling watch is a statement not just of wealth, but of sophistication= .. it's a way to show the world that you are a man in charge of your life= and that you know exactly what you want. Surely, among those things you d= o want is a bigger budget. So, why not kill two birds with one stone? Gett= ing a replica Breitling wristwatch and keeping your budget practically unt= ouched! http://mijufufod.cn/ Thanks to Diamond Replicas it is now possible! With an astonishing collect= ion of replica Breitling timepieces at rock bottom prices, Diamond Replica= s will make the delights of quality watches lovers. It offers excellent qu= ality timepieces at unsurpassed prices; a privacy-assured guarantee, incom= parable customer service, and what's better: 15% off when you buy two watc= hes! http://mijufufod.cn/ From chris_spurlock@putnaminv.com Fri Apr 3 22:14:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303583A6944; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:14:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -20.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CoQPc7AdeKXv; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 161-147-22-190.adsl.terra.cl (161-147-22-190.adsl.terra.cl [190.22.147.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E6043A68C9; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Orval Woody" To: "David Smart" Subject: Superior rep watches for you Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:15:38 -0500 Message-Id: A Breitling watch is a statement not just of wealth, but of sophistication= .. it's a way to show the world that you are a man in charge of your life= and that you know exactly what you want. Surely, among those things you d= o want is a bigger budget. So, why not kill two birds with one stone? Gett= ing a replica Breitling wristwatch and keeping your budget practically unt= ouched! http://jikiveher.cn/ Thanks to Diamond Replicas it is now possible! With an astonishing collect= ion of replica Breitling timepieces at rock bottom prices, Diamond Replica= s will make the delights of quality watches lovers. It offers excellent qu= ality timepieces at unsurpassed prices; a privacy-assured guarantee, incom= parable customer service, and what's better: 15% off when you buy two watc= hes! http://jikiveher.cn/ From cputnam@ebankperry.net Sat Apr 4 18:24:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293053A6A91; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:24:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -43.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-43.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nprTbo220YfE; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c-98-235-97-52.hsd1.nj.comcast.net (c-98-235-97-52.hsd1.nj.comcast.net [98.235.97.52]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D1BAF3A68C1; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Shane Schaefer" To: "Homer Benoit" Subject: Vacheron Constantin watch for a Gift! Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:25:11 -0500 Message-Id: The new Porsche Design watches originated from the novel Titanium Chronogr= aph from the 1970's, an absolutely unique creation due to the perfection o= f its workmanship. Based on its design, the Porsche Design Company develop= ed an appealing, stylish, sporty and highly accurate watch. Unfortunately,= these timepieces come with a high price tag. http://www.hereluvib.cn That's why a clever group of European manufacturers decided to offer the s= ame exact functionality and style at greatly reduced prices: the Porsche D= esign replica watches. These replicas are so similar to the brand name pie= ces that it is practically impossible to tell them apart, other than by th= eir price. They look the same, they function the same and they definitely = don't have the same prices :) How would you like to browse through an amaz= ing collection of these watches and marvel yourself with their low prices?= Visit Diamond Replicas and see for yourself why sometimes replicas are so= much better than the originals! http://www.hereluvib.cn From supprefnum642@ebay.com Sun Apr 5 13:10:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 533BC3A68F4; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:10:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.24 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Y46vTqr2q6s; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 118-161-151-26.dynamic.hinet.net (118-161-151-26.dynamic.hinet.net [118.161.151.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E83E3A6B34; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "James Atkins" To: "Sherri Carver" Subject: Cartier watches wholesale all year long! Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:11:38 -0500 Message-Id: What comes to mind when you hear the words Louis Vuitton? Of course, the c= lassic style, the superior quality of their bags, their unique look, and t= heir inflated price tag. But, how about being able to afford a beautiful L= ouis Vuitton handbag without having to dent your budget? It is now possibl= e. Thanks to Diamond Replicas, that Louis Vuitton bag or wallet is closer = to you than ever before! Come visit our new designer bag section and pick = that special Louis Vuitton handbag that you've always wanted. http://www.habexeciv.cn Remember, Diamond Replicas offers award winning customer service and an ab= solute guarantee of its products and your privacy! http://www.habexeciv.cn From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Apr 5 16:57:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9E93A6B71 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:57:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.414 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.919, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MQiqFA2jpcZs for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB193A6ACB for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LqbzY-0001Hn-Hx for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:43:08 +0000 Received: from [209.85.146.181] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lqbvh-00016p-VO for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:39:20 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so1005054waf.9 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CUs6CdPQxZmtQhMNIeS78H0TgsjY15uiCTa2+UxOLPk=; b=KoBcL36a5JFvWMZUXyLwzVnFoKB8D/zrIifwSL/G0TZ/DzRVTHLm5AGYwCAcVdWDrP urXulsZ8mWQUv2MBgv2ngCZ7EOjIrQPYSPQ4oPLPPb5z0KQ6RFlvoBOEtGT1d6qMAutD 1ySjx8fYrfCQv3ylMfudmuO2p8OTs1DCe6I54= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=pQRYaubbiLA9HWCoq9bzPN/303qdBIuPs5txMLkimNubC/q0TTAR1Mv7nQvLvmMFMs ggwJJkrX9IVbx+A73zUwcK3UzO+Od8wz5rQNujK7nvcCiK+W80XxdKXPALO5muV8hjME 7YtFckde5T4RCVyT17CiCkiZuN09L1EyOcF8A= Received: by 10.114.153.18 with SMTP id a18mr1921916wae.200.1238974749667; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k37sm4827176waf.7.2009.04.05.16.39.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D94116.8060407@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:39:02 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fred Baker CC: "Stark, Barbara" , Alan Kavanagh , wbeebee@cisco.com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cisco.com Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B8FA@crexc41p> <49D56370.8000009@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-04-03 18:15, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I don't think the IETF is in the business of making it easier for >> providers to set up walled gardens. > > I don't think the IETF is in the business of telling providers how to > run their businesses, walled garden or otherwise. Indeed not. The point is to make our drafts of general use, not specific to particular business models. That was the purpose of the technical half of my comment. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Apr 5 18:32:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFCA28C0E5 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aOcyWw0g81zd for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77663A6BEC for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LqdXn-0006ek-GI for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:22:35 +0000 Received: from web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.73]) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LqdSG-0006Qu-N1 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:17:02 +0000 Received: (qmail 59900 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Apr 2009 01:16:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1238980611; bh=obTTBPxDMj6+ksqvaHdIjWNVL2oCTneboL4PxBLdPX8=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qp6RK/+TqF7Y2hKoyEq8N3xjSRU8+Shi5RHS4Ws8Ya0FEXLb6uOHSbBPc4ytYC+JChHAngakSKKp61h2ncTb6gVCBZjVd+DIUeZQSQu3u2HJGRnjRTE+7pyVO0nsiwkORyrYMEYDMDr1HdoLiQaphE4vobVlWFt8zoM/j5pUxOA= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=vRGMgtTcVUun8u/mm85O/oNGbW6wH8taWMXZRW29D5uH6GrwP1l7aeAZl6zIxXplvxxLdqzp/pGGVgOEsdZC8N0IFwENL+9C9ckTkJ0FrRHcbUsQqKyV8iytrLWxeYj7kBv+YL7OtpoKtkLjeZshDwAG+4VNG7+nW0U7akmaFD4=; Message-ID: <780983.59419.qm@web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: l_OrWvIVM1m1ybnzUapQU8FxvN6SXgIUxkH74bAEPnmN0ofgnnUxLgMui4Y1Ldkd9AJuJ3i4zDeTFgi31YRQ8RXTtdej7uSZ.aWM7w1zLP2Da0lWe1VYOzJX2JeFz2mblPoONMvhUg5M1MXLdUDfas4g2ODInBjGessoXlj73_iYL2OcxLo7Hpjo4Urg6G9_26eGaDU7xhtjPyAYti_7CSbvuA7pcnanYjUwdkNgZSkTlFsmRmRvpypvTWzB.SmxTXZJtvgL393juqy3HkLDnLXgXLrFCDduBVjFTim48cdLW.7YforNKRX8BmhKE9C1gR0mSgCO4VgP4VUmY.kUgbHD Received: from [76.102.255.73] by web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:16:51 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/5.2.15 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.1 Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:16:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Mag Pat Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments To: Fred Baker , Brian E Carpenter Cc: BarbaraStark , Alan Kavanagh , wbeebee@cisco.com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1939636240-1238980611=:59419" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --0-1939636240-1238980611=:59419 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =A0 It would be interesting to know how the end users can learn whether=A0a ser= vice provider is monitoring without end=A0users knowledge=A0thereby SLA's a= re not breached=A0while the security and privacy of end users=A0remain pres= erved. MP --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote: From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments To: "Fred Baker" Cc: "Stark, Barbara" , "Alan Kavanagh" , wbeebee@cisco.com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cis= co.com Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 4:39 PM On 2009-04-03 18:15, Fred Baker wrote: >=20 > On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I don't think the IETF is in the business of making it easier for >> providers to set up walled gardens. >=20 > I don't think the IETF is in the business of telling providers how to > run their businesses, walled garden or otherwise. Indeed not. The point is to make our drafts of general use, not specific to particular business models. That was the purpose of the technical half of my comment. =A0=A0=A0Brian =0A=0A=0A --0-1939636240-1238980611=:59419 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
It would be interesting to know how the end users can learn whether&nb= sp;a service provider is monitoring without end users knowledge t= hereby SLA's are not breached while the security and privacy of end us= ers remain preserved.
MP
--- On Sun, 4/5/09, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpente= r@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gma= il.com>
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments
To:= "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com>
Cc: "Stark, Barbara" <bs7652@att= .com>, "Alan Kavanagh" <alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com>, wbeebee@cisco= .com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cisco.com
Date: Sunday,= April 5, 2009, 4:39 PM

On 2009-04-03 18:15, Fred Baker wrote:
>
&= gt; On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I don'= t think the IETF is in the business of making it easier for
>> pro= viders to set up walled gardens.
>
> I don't think the IETF is= in the business of telling providers how to
> run their businesses, = walled garden or otherwise.

Indeed not. The point is to make our dra= fts of general use, not specific
to particular business models. That was= the purpose of the technical
half of my comment.

  &nb= sp;Brian


=0A=0A --0-1939636240-1238980611=:59419-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Apr 5 20:37:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D093A6B1F for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.911, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BIC8hlYZjdM5 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481C23A6403 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LqfU9-000D4f-Qs for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:26:57 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LqfNT-000Co3-8y for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:20:13 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,328,1235952000"; d="scan'208";a="167157472" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2009 03:20:02 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n363K27o024691; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:20:02 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n363JOQM004590; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 03:20:02 GMT Cc: Brian E Carpenter , BarbaraStark , Alan Kavanagh , wbeebee@cisco.com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cisco.com Message-Id: <8784FDD3-A9C5-41E5-878D-2AB5BC3CAAEE@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: Mag Pat In-Reply-To: <780983.59419.qm@web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:20:02 -0700 References: <780983.59419.qm@web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=338; t=1238988002; x=1239852002; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=WaB31w/ocLWHIpfEZsRPMvR8UDgT1hEM8+s0yTKSxN4=; b=VnTMjzeMUjCIVv2TUU0M3MNlhnW+5cJS09WIAm1Xs7lVvwxp1CgJtScX8L z4npJusV9dqxZ2gqMXoerDgaYr0ZY3Wvg6omYilQV4m4jm0ntZp6DXI4sz+T doiPbS5jrtDdw3teC4cRDboZajTSKsHpcLQCiKVhm18zfzZUNIujk=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Apr 5, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Mag Pat wrote: > It would be interesting to know how the end users can learn whether > a service provider is monitoring without end users knowledge thereby > SLA's are not breached while the security and privacy of end users > remain preserved. Whether a service provider is monitoring what? From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Apr 5 20:52:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E0A3A694F for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:52:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrEj+A4CFLqk for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248173A6403 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lqfhq-000Ddm-Fa for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:41:06 +0000 Received: from web36906.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.74]) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LqfcB-000DPM-R4 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:35:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 22192 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Apr 2009 03:35:15 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1238988915; bh=W7yoGFKtSyjeVNZ0zDOcqbF0VZi7bUEY6QUE23rLTCA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=kfuAV3683VxCkvUl3ttZT8S6f9Pxxz8QZ4CVxVztbBYgwuA0Pd4umtni/bpgRRvyKpHwgJOJ8AeI1znaGoyNw1tgS5C47i/V5+/tq5zkTa6yW9zznvCxfK2409ihrL2indFuYvhMKa/x6xT8VeZfis/gasBTwix74K9hhNfpwY8= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cLhYgaBoLbBejHCOQriRfif2hBEhZSRtejg/5p3eebS+ZSU1KCAd5fdXisoL40Iz7Oi0kg7meJIvgWzUunr22I1KWgSi6zvpvYJu5XaCeqXON9fqALsLxjrCYmt9MUMJS+S/5mbBuSl2QIxGa9CSXkYJgN41GlkfZh2C2byeFtE=; Message-ID: <288638.21470.qm@web36906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: X5um0tQVM1nbwBDyfYZ4eqc0HWIOlxmY7qVwggR1JsqN68sOJU6yDs.U.moaXpwP4F7JEKEnPmrZmi6AJk.ny_Y4U.ij3XAyUNuyH.u0dzk.V18xKOcnVFxQ3Y4tNJMEtUhlGe1fM0tW67PRfsNVEvBT9SVpnHJWyuONiFrVkkHNXYakn.aMwzik4ehl2w7qBhPul06Wqfp3a42TGtXrBkp84P6IH9VlaUaQS9Rm7yMc_QNVGR56SLnTD82TIah.OFXpB9eG7pjqEK.wThd1.ZgV072BfS5Nr2R84ovguhl5dDDqavP0m594GvXme4EuoP3xszEBBzQ- Received: from [76.102.255.73] by web36906.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:35:15 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/5.2.15 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.1 Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:35:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Mag Pat Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments To: Fred Baker Cc: Brian E Carpenter , BarbaraStark , Alan Kavanagh , wbeebee@cisco.com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1448097903-1238988915=:21470" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --0-1448097903-1238988915=:21470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =A01. Port mirroring and capturing the contents which can be used by author= ities for good cause =A0 =A0 2. Man in the middle attack , monitoring sensitive information like SSN= s, login credential,=A0 jamming content like=A0VoIP, audio,video=A0etc =A0 MP --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Fred Baker wrote: From: Fred Baker Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments To: "Mag Pat" Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" , "BarbaraStark" , "Alan Kavanagh" , wbeebee@cisco.co= m, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shemant@cisco.com Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:20 PM On Apr 5, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Mag Pat wrote: > It would be interesting to know how the end users can learn whether a ser= vice provider is monitoring without end users knowledge thereby SLA's are n= ot breached while the security and privacy of end users remain preserved. Whether a service provider is monitoring what? =0A=0A=0A --0-1448097903-1238988915=:21470 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 1. Port mirroring and capturing th= e contents which can be used by authorities for good cause
 
  2. Man in the middle attack , monitoring sensitive information = like SSNs, login credential,  jamming content like VoIP, audio,vi= deo etc
 
MP

--- On Sun, 4/5/09, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com><= /I> wrote:

From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subjec= t: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments
To: "Mag Pat" <magra= k2000@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.= com>, "BarbaraStark" <bs7652@att.com>, "Alan Kavanagh" <alan.ka= vanagh@ericsson.com>, wbeebee@cisco.com, jhw@apple.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.o= rg, shemant@cisco.com
Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:20 PM


On Apr 5, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Mag Pat wrote:
> It would be interesting to know how the end users can learn whether = a service provider is monitoring without end users knowledge thereby SLA's = are not breached while the security and privacy of end users remain preserv= ed.

Whether a service provider is monitoring what?


=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1448097903-1238988915=:21470-- From j.leahy@americanhotel.com Thu Apr 9 19:34:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D8E28C140 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:34:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.837 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.172, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 540b88yC+Vas for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from net-93-67-182-50.cust.dsl.vodafone.it (net-93-67-182-50.cust.dsl.vodafone.it [93.67.182.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DE2E28C141 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:34:43 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Customer Receipt/Purchase Confirmation From: VIAGRA . Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090410023444.1DE2E28C141@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Men's Health wirzpBuild Maximum MUSCLE, STRENGTH, and POWER!
Try It FREE for 21 Days! ORDER NOW! Plus, get 2 FREE Bonus Gifts!
Dear v6ops-archive

Men's Health recommends


FREE gifts reserved for you: v6ops-archive@ietf.org
If you would prefer not to receive future information about special offers from Men's Health,
you may Unsubscribe.


Customer Service Department, 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098


Copyright, Men's Health
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 15 08:32:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3287A3A6B53 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:32:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AR-xERFsVSMe for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539EE3A6AD2 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lu71Z-0003nX-Js for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:27:41 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lu71K-0003mB-Ka for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:27:34 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,192,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="41975269" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2009 15:27:25 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3FFRPkg031748; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:27:25 -0400 Received: from dhcp-64-100-227-211.cisco.com (dhcp-64-100-227-211.cisco.com [64.100.227.211]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3FFRLsP020592; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:27:25 GMT Message-Id: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:27:24 -0400 Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se, rbonica@juniper.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=622; t=1239809245; x=1240673245; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04=20WGLC |Sender:=20 |To:=20IPv6=20Operations=20; bh=hrx+EhQNHN7GzNohCxJA1RgjxtSYWIAhSMlqsjwmbqU=; b=eltADv/o6aAr7ZiL/t9vGgEBXJxxMkbqr4vgPOnUnawONZGnNTw98DUfCo hC4daLBcG6sWK5QHWwf4HKtWrFue7EIh2Qf3T2/JGrkwFn5x4ug8Jjkqfqzo Xfs3EcaUob; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-ietf- v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list. We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 15 09:55:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA553A6E60 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:55:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ieXUq1zP44J2 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC383A6DEF for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lu8Mc-0009ia-PD for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:53:30 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lu8MO-0009hY-E8 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:53:24 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,192,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="41984294" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2009 16:53:15 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3FGrEL2010714; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:53:14 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3FGrEHs008272; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:53:14 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:53:13 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:53:12 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Thread-Index: Acm937W0/4xlNqKDTEezlt1Ty8isOwACtgDA References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Fred Baker (fred)" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Apr 2009 16:53:13.0999 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAA951F0:01C9BDEA] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1035; t=1239814394; x=1240678394; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 =20WGLC |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Fred=20Baker=20(fred)=22=20,=0A=2 0=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22IPv6=20Operations=22=20; bh=QrIs+j9ZtkiMbspLKTv+UDk7nYX18XauIeC97ZbsJ3c=; b=Aq/Jdl9J4x7g4xSNqd+6hl/hmGtpqZfIr4HLbMqLqkTYBn1wr6u+ns6OFn p8IdCq6C4dF1OlsITRVkUVzH2CrHV8taRErA04RbPng59XWoAyd2mysu7s1S 7wBAjRAezj; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: As I requested earlier, this draft should be changed form BCP to Informational. Thanks, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:27 AM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-ietf-=20 v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04. Please read it now. If you find nits =20 (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to =20 the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a =20 statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, =20 please post your comments to the list. We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the =20 document as well as its content. If you have read the document and =20 believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important =20 comment to make. From katrien.verschueren@allenovery.com Wed Apr 15 10:56:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9611A3A6B52 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.172, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Waan-l3ztItw for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6n2.de (unknown [189.32.30.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ECB093A6C4D for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:25 -0700 (PDT) To: " Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Men's Health wirzpBuild Maximum MUSCLE, STRENGTH, and POWER!
Try It FREE for 21 Days! ORDER NOW! Plus, get 2 FREE Bonus Gifts!
Dear v6ops-archive

Men's Health recommends


FREE gifts reserved for you: v6ops-archive@ietf.org
If you would prefer not to receive future information about special offers from Men's Health,
you may Unsubscribe.


Customer Service Department, 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098


Copyright, Men's Health
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 15 13:36:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57483A6F3F for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:36:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.912, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8bhMb4beqTbn for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F693A6F3C for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuBmz-000Om6-06 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:32:57 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuBma-000Okh-VY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:32:44 +0000 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1955F8318E; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 46BB82808B; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-ab861bb000000ff0-99-49e64460bba2 Received: from il0602f-dhcp171.apple.com (il0602f-dhcp171.apple.com [17.206.50.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 236E528086; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <6EA5BC8A-B3F3-4E08-9C2C-B331B3AA5447@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: "Fred Baker (fred)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:32:31 -0700 References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Apr 15, 2009, at 09:53, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > As I requested earlier, this draft should be changed form BCP to > Informational. If the Working Group chair(s) direct me to change the category, then I'll change it. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 15 13:36:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E00B3A6F3A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:36:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.389 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ao-ZGIip3Scj for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8F33A6F3F for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuBpd-000OxE-Fh for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:35:41 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuBpP-000OwZ-0x for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:35:34 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,194,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="42002227" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2009 20:35:26 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3FKZPkT002990; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:35:25 -0400 Received: from dhcp-64-100-227-211.cisco.com (dhcp-64-100-227-211.cisco.com [64.100.227.211]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3FKZPH4027017; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:35:25 GMT Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <60154BF4-D079-4C9B-AE03-C28421C275B2@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: james woodyatt In-Reply-To: <6EA5BC8A-B3F3-4E08-9C2C-B331B3AA5447@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:35:24 -0400 References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <6EA5BC8A-B3F3-4E08-9C2C-B331B3AA5447@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=714; t=1239827725; x=1240691725; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 =20WGLC |Sender:=20 |To:=20james=20woodyatt=20; bh=CY2Bagay4IGGvFoDtfx9tXPxk1mA4vsi5ixhIOhnhFc=; b=WjNPCY9eo6JynpjWpRTy3XoeznlR/p+4YGAgxQ1y6mRyXMz7minUV9KNCA p0tF/VSCYzADjDMnHeOnQ//TxENEZ+BvNilI0S3JwTl5TPXyJndCEyz4PDvQ o6K3llQ2TP; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Please do in your next revision. I think he argument holds. Barring updates as the result of last call comments, I don't think the setting in the draft is critical, though. The important point is not whether you mark it as standards vs informational tracks; it's what the IESG decides. On Apr 15, 2009, at 4:32 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Apr 15, 2009, at 09:53, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: >> >> As I requested earlier, this draft should be changed form BCP to >> Informational. > > If the Working Group chair(s) direct me to change the category, then > I'll change it. > > > -- > james woodyatt > member of technical staff, communications engineering > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 16 16:32:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A3B3A68C8 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.195, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_BAYES_5x7=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AF83iax9SkJP for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C000F3A67C0 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuazG-0007S5-4w for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:27:18 +0000 Received: from [209.85.146.180] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Luaz3-0007RZ-JH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:27:11 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so310906waf.9 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:27:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ojYk6g8H8gYz54tgsAPD3na3QpVAHwntymmAWZWhwKA=; b=pY0clx1DRmuaGZ8OCl5jUGALtPsllvvW3HlBcKtq3s3XSXQLiIyfcfTwSp6izeuIH2 ZWC6ovgohXKViHD1E8ECkk9O3ODwb7/j7uQy6tx63cBtvl/TRzaIwJ60I4mIlZu88t5d pWPAe3dWP127rUx7NeNJBrV4WH6d6whNosFM0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=gNuiNantwkUBSEfOGI9deTckLBKIXpjo508ovhlc3batZLimlDtKOqWgy6PL3j2K4Q wo1yE/Ne8G9VRoQdK6ufJRqX4Mab3ywInc7SiwYQHVWP0wHL8Bnj+N15xXYBge+8NJD5 gghJMQCqgaLSlz4W7QZOYrH+ogvfpgiYRZjgE= Received: by 10.114.60.7 with SMTP id i7mr439886waa.174.1239924424538; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m6sm1953450wag.14.2009.04.16.16.27.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49E7BEC5.5070300@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:27:01 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fred Baker CC: IPv6 Operations , kurtis@kurtis.pp.se, rbonica@juniper.net Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: IMHO this is an important document, and almost ready to be a BCP, but a few points need attention: It pains me to say it, but I think the following sentence in the Overview section should simply be deleted: "It should be noted that NAT for IPv6 is both strictly forbidden by the standards documents and strongly deprecated by Internet operators." There's no way this sentence won't be controversial at the IESG stage, and any attempt to wordsmith it will be highly painful for all concerned. Deleting it doesn't change the value or recommendations of the draft. At the bottom of page 4: "As the latest revision of this document is being drafted, conventional stateful packet filters are activated as a side effect of outbound flow initiations from interior network nodes." I can't parse this sentence. What does "are activated" mean? By who, in which boxes? And does the first clause just mean "Today, " ? "2.1. Basic Sanitation In addition to the functions required of all Internet routers [RFC4294], residential gateways are expected to have basic stateless filters for prohibiting certains kinds of traffic with invalid headers, e.g. martian packets, spoofs, routing header type code zero, etc." I think 'martian' needs a definition. Also, should this section say something about ICMP in general? In section 2.2: "To prevent Teredo from acquiring a utility that it was never meant to have on networks where both IPv4/NAT and native IPv6 services are available, gateways MUST impede Teredo tunnels by blocking clients from learning their mapped addresses and ports in the qualification procedure described in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of [RFC4380]." Just to avoid silly misunderstandings, could we s/gateways/gateways on such networks/ please? Also, I don't think we can justify MUST; how about SHOULD? Also, should this topic also cover 6to4? Hosts behind an IPv6 CPE SHOULD NOT use host 6to4 based on RFC3068. However, I have to wonder why this whole topic (Teredo+6to4) is relevant to this document. Shouldn't it be in the CPE requirements document instead? "R2: Packets bearing in their outer IPv6 headers multicast destination addresses of equal or narrower scope that the configured scope boundary level of the gateway MUST NOT be forwarded in any direction. The DEFAULT scope boundary level SHOULD be organization-local scope." I can't find a definition of "organization-local scope" or even what is meant by "configured scope boundary level". Probably the document needs a short discussion of what it means by "scope". "R5: Packets MAY be discarded if the source and/or destination address in the outer IPv6 header is a unique local address. By DEFAULT, gateways SHOULD NOT forward packets across unique local address scope boundaries." I would insert a normative reference to RFC4193. "R28: If a gateway cannot determine whether the endpoints of a TCP connection are active, then it MAY abandon the state record if it has been idle for some time. In such cases, the value of the "established connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than two hours four minutes." Two hours four minutes? "3.3.2. SCTP Filters" Reading this section, I wondered whether there is anything to say about SHIM6? A TCP session over SHIM6 could simply appear, with no SYN/ACK, or disappear, as the shim switches addresses. "R31: Gateways MUST implement a protocol to permit applications to solicit inbound traffic without advance knowledge of the addresses of exterior nodes with which they expect to communicate. This protocol MUST have a specification that meets the requirements of [RFC5378], [RFC3979], [RFC4748] and [RFC4879]." It sounds good but it doesn't tell a CPE implementor what to code. Also, is it really part of simple security? I'm not sure that I have a constructive suggestion, but maybe the hard requirement should be more firewallish: gateways must not allow unsolicited inbound traffic by default? With the solicitation mechanisms being out of scope for this document? "Much of the text describing the detailed requirements for TCP and UDP filtering is derived or transposed from [RFC5382] and [RFC4787], and some form of attribution here may therefore be appopriate." I fear you will need to insert the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4748 (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3989 (Obsoleted by RFC 5189) Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 17 08:15:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75313A6E00 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.743 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.743 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gW9S24KBWb5s for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28BE3A6DFC for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lupj3-000JMK-3H for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:11:33 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lupio-000JL5-HU for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:11:25 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,205,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="42157746" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2009 15:11:16 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3HFBGPx018775; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:11:16 -0400 Received: from dhcp-64-100-227-200.cisco.com (dhcp-64-100-227-200.cisco.com [64.100.227.200]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3HFBGln019571; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:11:16 GMT Cc: IPv6 Operations , kurtis@kurtis.pp.se, rbonica@juniper.net Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <49E7BEC5.5070300@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:11:16 -0400 References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <49E7BEC5.5070300@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=11161; t=1239981076; x=1240845076; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 =20WGLC |Sender:=20 |To:=20Brian=20E=20Carpenter=20; bh=R5xNgjX22lIyYfaLYKpMPe8ioS/ZTpA5zsV3Q3+FShE=; b=v/rqBb1UE+cbEc5eRnFqd/xkwDKwS26GeKy7GYG6i5OPuO2DGYJaVEnMQ+ iFxj+Bn/mSxLTla1LLjeR8VELE3n2Mj6xKVOc/zvNSVQn9OPDs6u7IYuK/Ih WYbFHExz+w; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Apr 16, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It pains me to say it, but I think the following sentence in the > Overview section should simply be deleted: > > "It should be noted that NAT for IPv6 is both strictly forbidden by > the standards documents and strongly deprecated by Internet > operators." It is also untrue. The operators are not asking for NAT to go away. In fact, many enterprise administrations including Apple's and Cisco's are finding places where they specifically want to use NAT technology. > "2.1. Basic Sanitation > > In addition to the functions required of all Internet routers > [RFC4294], residential gateways are expected to have basic stateless > filters for prohibiting certains kinds of traffic with invalid > headers, e.g. martian packets, spoofs, routing header type code > zero, > etc." > > I think 'martian' needs a definition. Maybe you want to pick one of the following? I would go for the discussion in RFC 1208, or the one in RFC 1812. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1208.txt 1208 A Glossary of Networking Terms. O.J. Jacobsen, D.C. Lynch. March 1991. (Format: TXT=41156 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) Martian: Humorous term applied to packets that turn up unexpectedly on the wrong network because of bogus routing entries. Also used as a name for a packet which has an altogether bogus (non-registered or ill-formed) Internet address. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1542.txt 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol. W. Wimer. October 1993. (Format: TXT=52948 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1532) (Updates RFC0951) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD) Hosts and routers are usually required to silently discard incoming datagrams containing illegal IP source addresses. This is generally known as "Martian address filtering." One of these illegal addresses is 0.0.0.0 (or actually anything on network 0). However, hosts or routers which support a BOOTP relay agent MUST accept for local delivery to the relay agent BOOTREQUEST messages whose IP source address is 0.0.0.0. BOOTREQUEST messages from legal IP source addresses MUST also be accepted. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1812.txt 1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. F. Baker, Ed.. June 1995. (Format: TXT=415740 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1716, RFC1009) (Updated by RFC2644) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) 5.3.7 Martian Address Filtering Martian Filtering A packet that contains an invalid source or destination address is considered to be martian and discarded. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2650.txt 2650 Using RPSL in Practice. D. Meyer, J. Schmitz, C. Orange, M. Prior, C. Alaettinoglu. August 1999. (Format: TXT=55272 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) Figure 18 presents some example route-set objects. The set rs-uo contains two address prefixes, namely 128.223.0.0/16 and 198.32.162.0/24. The set rs-bar contains the members of the set rs- uo and the address prefix 128.7.0.0/16. The set rs-martians illustrate the use of range operators. 0.0.0.0/0^32 are the length 32 more specifics of 0.0.0.0/0, i.e. the host routes; 224.0.0.0/3^+ are the more specifics of 224.0.0.0/3, i.e. the routes falling into the multicast address space. For more complete list of range operators please refer to RFC-2622. route-set: rs-martians remarks: routes not accepted from any peer members: 0.0.0.0/0, # default route 0.0.0.0/0^32, # host routes 224.0.0.0/3^+, # multicast routes 127.0.0.0/8^9-32, . . . As part of the decapsulation the node SHOULD silently discard a packet with an invalid IPv4 source address such as a multicast address, a broadcast address, 0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1. In general it SHOULD apply the rules for martian filtering in [18] and ingress filtering [13] on the IPv4 source address. After the decapsulation the node SHOULD silently discard a packet with an invalid IPv6 source address. This includes IPv6 multicast addresses, the unspecified address, and the loopback address but also IPv4-compatible IPv6 source addresses where the IPv4 part of the address is an (IPv4) multicast address, broadcast address, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1. In general it SHOULD apply the rules for martian filtering in [18] and ingress filtering [13] on the IPv4-compatible source address. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3704.txt 3704 Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks. F. Baker, P. Savola. March 2004. (Format: TXT=35942 bytes) (Updates RFC2827) (Also BCP0084) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE) RFC 2827 recommends that ISPs police their customers' traffic by dropping traffic entering their networks that is coming from a source address not legitimately in use by the customer network. The filtering includes but is in no way limited to the traffic whose source address is a so-called "Martian Address" - an address that is reserved [3], including any address within 0.0.0.0/8, 10.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16, 224.0.0.0/4, or 240.0.0.0/4. The questionable benefit of Loose RPF is found in asymmetric routing situations: a packet is dropped if there is no route at all, such as to "Martian addresses" or addresses that are not currently routed, but is not dropped if a route exists. One case where Loose RPF might fit well could be an ISP filtering packets from its upstream providers, to get rid of packets with "Martian" or other non-routed addresses. If other approaches are unsuitable, loose RPF could be used as a form of contract verification: the other network is presumably certifying that it has provided appropriate ingress filtering rules, so the network doing the filtering need only verify the fact and react if any packets which would show a breach in the contract are detected. Of course, this mechanism would only show if the source addresses used are "martian" or other unrouted addresses -- not if they are from someone else's address space. Therefore, the use of Loose RPF cannot be recommended, except as a way to measure whether "martian" or other unrouted addresses are being used. o Loose RPF primarily filters out unrouted prefixes such as Martian addresses. It can be applied in the upstream interfaces to reduce the size of DoS attacks with unrouted source addresses. In the downstream interfaces it can only be used as a contract verification, that the other network has performed at least some ingress filtering. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3871.txt 3871 Operational Security Requirements for Large Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure. G. Jones, Ed.. September 2004. (Format: TXT=151101 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) Per [RFC1208] "Martian: Humorous term applied to packets that turn up unexpectedly on the wrong network because of bogus routing entries. Also used as a name for a packet which has an altogether bogus (non-registered or ill-formed) Internet address." For the purposes of this document Martians are defined as "packets having a source address that, by application of the current forwarding tables, would not have its return traffic routed back to the sender." "Spoofed packets" are a common source of martians. A "spoofed packet" is defined as a packet that has a source address that does not correspond to any address assigned to the system which sent the packet. Spoofed packets are often "bogons" or "martians". 2.5.6. Support Automatic Discarding Of Bogons and Martians The device MUST provide a means to automatically drop all "bogons" (Section 1.8) and "martians" (Section 1.8). This option MUST work in the presence of dynamic routing and dynamically assigned addresses. o Support Automatic Discarding Of Bogons and Martians http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3964.txt 3964 Security Considerations for 6to4. P. Savola, C. Patel. December 2004. (Format: TXT=83360 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) Alexey Kuznetsov brought up the implementation problem with IPv6 martian checks. Christian Huitema formulated the rules that rely on 6to4 relays using only anycast. Keith Moore brought up the point about reduced flexibility. Brian Carpenter, Tony Hain, and Vladislav Yasevich are acknowledged for lengthy discussions. Alain Durand reminded the authors about relay spoofing problems. Brian Carpenter reminded the authors about the BGP-based 6to4 router model. Christian Huitema gave a push for a more complete threat analysis. Itojun Hagino spelled out the operators' fears about 6to4 relay http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4276.txt 4276 BGP-4 Implementation Report. S. Hares, A. Retana. January 2006. (Format: TXT=132864 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Ignores the prefix in case of martian nexthop, and in case of length not equal to IPv4 address-length, we send NOTIFICATION with error subcode Attribute Length error. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4379.txt 4379 Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures. K. Kompella, G. Swallow. February 2006. (Format: TXT=116872 bytes) (Updates RFC1122) (Updated by RFC5462) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) Although this document makes special use of 127/8 address, these are used only in conjunction with the UDP port 3503. Furthermore, these packets are only processed by routers. All other hosts MUST treat all packets with a destination address in the range 127/8 in accordance to RFC 1122. Any packet received by a router with a destination address in the range 127/8 without a destination UDP port of 3503 MUST be treated in accordance to RFC 1812. In particular, the default behavior is to treat packets destined to a 127/8 address as "martians". http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4949.txt 4949 Internet Security Glossary, Version 2. R. Shirey. August 2007. (Format: TXT=867626 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2828) (Also FYI0036) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) $ Martian (D) /slang/ A packet that arrives unexpectedly at the wrong address or on the wrong network because of incorrect routing or because it has a non-registered or ill-formed IP address. [R1208] From missebergd@909mail.dk Fri Apr 17 08:36:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D6E3A6951 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:36:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DRUGS_PAIN=0.01, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_OBFU_HYDROCODONE=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id el3ZsjUxnvjh for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host21.190-225-49.telecom.net.ar (host147.190-225-56.telecom.net.ar [190.225.56.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E3A0D3A6DFB for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:36:02 -0700 (PDT) To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: Re: Your Hydroc0done 0rder #830958 From: v6ops-archive@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090417153603.E3A0D3A6DFB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 76695 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 17 13:06:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AB33A6840 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:06:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.455, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_BAYES_5x7=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1RDJGsbBekj for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB613A688D for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuuHR-000INk-Db for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:03:21 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuuHE-000IMs-E3 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:03:14 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11E6600CEC7; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id D5C6D28092; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:03:07 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-ab6fabb000000259-a3-49e8e07b6559 Received: from il0602f-dhcp171.apple.com (il0602f-dhcp171.apple.com [17.206.50.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 994152807D; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Fred Baker , Kurt Erik Lindqvist , Ron Bonica Message-Id: <36FA1A22-914E-479E-BB4B-9FBAC63B89A6@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: Brian E Carpenter , IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <49E7BEC5.5070300@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:03:07 -0700 References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <49E7BEC5.5070300@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Apr 16, 2009, at 16:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > It pains me to say it, but I think the following sentence in the > Overview section should simply be deleted: > > "It should be noted that NAT for IPv6 is both strictly forbidden by > the standards documents and strongly deprecated by Internet > operators." > > There's no way this sentence won't be controversial at the IESG stage, > and any attempt to wordsmith it will be highly painful for all > concerned. > Deleting it doesn't change the value or recommendations of the draft. My next revision deletes the entire paragraph containing this sentence. > At the bottom of page 4: > > "As the latest revision of this document is being drafted, > conventional stateful packet filters are activated as a side effect > of outbound flow initiations from interior network nodes." > > I can't parse this sentence. What does "are activated" mean? By who, > in > which boxes? And does the first clause just mean "Today, " ? It's a tough sentence to make work. The idea I'm trying to describe here is the conventional method of creating state at the time of forwarding the initial packet for a new outbound flow to permit reverse path traffic to flow inbound. I've got a candidate phrase in the next revision. > "2.1. Basic Sanitation > > In addition to the functions required of all Internet routers > [RFC4294], residential gateways are expected to have basic stateless > filters for prohibiting certains kinds of traffic with invalid > headers, e.g. martian packets, spoofs, routing header type code > zero, > etc." > > I think 'martian' needs a definition. Hmmm. That could be an interesting tangent. I thought I mostly covered the bases of what constitutes the martian addresses in IPv6 in section 3.1, but I suppose I could have added an explicit prohibition of packets with V4MAPPED addresses. I didn't think that was necessary, and the design team didn't consider it, but I wouldn't object to adding it if there were calls for it here. > Also, should this section say something about ICMP in general? > > > In section 2.2: > "To prevent Teredo from > acquiring a utility that it was never meant to have on networks > where > both IPv4/NAT and native IPv6 services are available, gateways MUST > impede Teredo tunnels by blocking clients from learning their mapped > addresses and ports in the qualification procedure described in > sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of [RFC4380]." > > Just to avoid silly misunderstandings, could we > s/gateways/gateways on such networks/ please? No problem. > Also, I don't think we can justify MUST; how about SHOULD? I have no objection. > Also, should this topic also cover 6to4? Hosts behind an IPv6 CPE > SHOULD NOT use host 6to4 based on RFC3068. My assumption was that residential IPv6 CPE would normally prevent this by using RFC 1918 addressing behind their IPv4 NAT. An explicit deprecation would only seem necessary in the case of IPv4/NAT gateways that translate between global addresses across the realm boundary. I don't think those are very common, are they? > However, I have to wonder why this whole topic (Teredo+6to4) is > relevant to this document. Shouldn't it be in the CPE requirements > document instead? > > "R2: Packets bearing in their outer IPv6 headers multicast > destination > addresses of equal or narrower scope that the configured scope > boundary level of the gateway MUST NOT be forwarded in any > direction. > The DEFAULT scope boundary level SHOULD be organization-local > scope." > > I can't find a definition of "organization-local scope" or even what > is meant by "configured scope boundary level". Probably the document > needs > a short discussion of what it means by "scope". > > "R5: Packets MAY be discarded if the source and/or destination > address > in the outer IPv6 header is a unique local address. By DEFAULT, > gateways SHOULD NOT forward packets across unique local address > scope > boundaries." > > I would insert a normative reference to RFC4193. Good idea. > "R28: If a gateway cannot determine whether the endpoints of a TCP > connection are active, then it MAY abandon the state record if it > has > been idle for some time. In such cases, the value of the > "established connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than two > hours > four minutes." > > Two hours four minutes? The same reasoning as in RFC 5382, hence the informative reference. I'll insert an explicit reference into the recommendation paragraph. > > "3.3.2. SCTP Filters" > > Reading this section, I wondered whether there is anything to say > about SHIM6? A TCP session over SHIM6 could simply appear, with > no SYN/ACK, or disappear, as the shim switches addresses. > > "R31: Gateways MUST implement a protocol to permit applications to > solicit inbound traffic without advance knowledge of the addresses > of > exterior nodes with which they expect to communicate. This protocol > MUST have a specification that meets the requirements of [RFC5378], > [RFC3979], [RFC4748] and [RFC4879]." I think I should relax both these MUST instances to SHOULD instances here. The second sentence should probably have an 'if implemented' conditional phrase after the subject. > It sounds good but it doesn't tell a CPE implementor what to code. We can't very well tell them to code UPnP IGD for IPv6 until the UPnP Forum publishes a specification that meets our requirements. We can't tell them to code ALD, because it's just a draft, and an expired one at that. We might try to tell them to code MIDCOM, but I say good luck with that. This recommendation is basically a stand-in for a more concrete recommendation once some kind of de facto standard, if any, emerges. > Also, is it really part of simple security? I would argue it is. Specifically, it's a constraint on simple security to ensure that applications are not prevented from soliciting inbound flows without knowing in advance the remote addresses of their peers. > I fear you will need to insert the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. Why do you think this may be necessary? > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4748 (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3989 > (Obsoleted by RFC 5189) Thanks for catching these. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 17 13:17:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D733A6E4C for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:17:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.393 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4lAJmQGhLJ0 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA9628C180 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuuUA-000JVe-Ul for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:16:30 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LuuTw-000JUn-TC for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:16:23 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id B6C6B3A695C; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:15:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-05.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090417201501.B6C6B3A695C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service Author(s) : J. Woodyatt Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-05.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2009-04-17 This document makes specific recommendations to the makers of devices that provide "simple security" capabilities at the perimeter of local-area IPv6 networks in Internet-enabled homes and small offices. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-04-17130350.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From a.zalewska@kpr.pl Fri Apr 17 20:51:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903183A6AEA; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:51:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -28.884 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-28.884 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=9.246, BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3IibHCQImT6D; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tassani.it (118-171-76-250.dynamic.hinet.net [118.171.76.250]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A993A6DBB; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8267Izedu7D8y9eBdoObw@ietf.org> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:52:41 -0500 From: "Donahue Cecelia" TO: <"pce-bounces@ietf.org, ntdp@ietf.org, rserpool@ietf.org, vpim@ietf.org, nfsv4-request@ietf.org, multimob@ietf.org, pppext-request@ietf.org, v6ops-archive@ietf.org, opes-archive"@ietf.org> Subject: 15% off on two watches Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit There are things in life that seem unattainable. Owning a fine watch doesn't have to be one of them. http://www.yakuzonov.cn The watch of your dreams doesn't have to be an overpriced piece of machinery. Nowadays you can get the same functionality and distinctive looks from the next best thing. Visit Diam0nd Reps and choose from hundreds of gorgeous models at less than ten percent the price of an original. http://www.yakuzonov.cn Most experts couldn't tell our watches from the real thing, and neither will your friends, so impress them today get started with your watch shopping now! From bartb@stride-forward-developping-individual.cn Sat Apr 18 12:51:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A1E3A6E59; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:51:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.659 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yA5bjGR7Yk1E; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stride-forward-developping-individual.cn (78-3-14-49.adsl.net.t-com.hr [78.3.14.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 450CA3A6C04; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:51:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s173979; d=stride-forward-developping-individual.cn; h=Message-ID:Date:Reply-To:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Cc:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=WvlfczgQb7Bks5a7ZjkERVEyrOd2a/T6L90UMLdj3HtvEk/zZ/AEHe5C7GZXd2ryYtf3+Kl6eGv8bOHyO4wtiw==; Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:55:12 +0300 Reply-To: "Scott" From: "Scott" User-Agent: Mozilla/4.79C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Johnny" Cc: "Earl" , "Jimmy" , "Antonio" Subject: Happy with them all Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Want to find what Sam has received last Friday? www.stride-forward-developping-individual.cn plant "No, it is office for the first expenses fork clock of your settling "No." From ark@hursthouse.co.nz Sun Apr 19 18:11:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6873A6918; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:11:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -21.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-21.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLHGriB+QUOP; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmecwuxi.com (218-169-4-230.dynamic.hinet.net [218.169.4.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DD03A6CF0; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9M8k8gR9woD48hB31Xg588d@ietf.org> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:13:07 -0500 From: "Gore Delmar" TO: <"v6ops-archive@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, registrar@ietf.org, web-archive@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org, nemo-request@ietf.org, swmp@ietf.org, ltru-bounces"@ietf.org> Subject: reps better than originals Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit There are things in life that seem unattainable. Owning a fine watch doesn't have to be one of them. http://www.vuqinufup.cn Take advantage of Diam0nd Reps tremendous specials, and get yourself a superb designer watch imitation for just a couple of hundred bucks. Plus an extra 15 percent discount when you get two time pieces in the same purchase! http://www.vuqinufup.cn Click here now and enjoy our fast shipping and safe billing method while getting the most realistic look on a fine reproduction timepiece. From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 19 18:11:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD343A6DCB for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The results of your email commands From: nemo-bounces@ietf.org To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0267158887==" Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:11:53 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: NEMO Working Group X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: nemo-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org --===============0267158887== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The results of your email command are provided below. Attached is your original message. - Unprocessed: http://www.vuqinufup.cn Take advantage of Diam0nd Reps tremendous specials, and get yourself a superb designer watch imitation for just a couple of hundred bucks. Plus an extra 15 percent discount when you get two time pieces in the same purchase! http://www.vuqinufup.cn Click here now and enjoy our fast shipping and safe billing method while getting the most realistic look on a fine reproduction timepiece. - Done. --===============0267158887== Content-Type: message/rfc822 MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nemo-request@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nemo-request@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6873A6918; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:11:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -21.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-21.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLHGriB+QUOP; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmecwuxi.com (218-169-4-230.dynamic.hinet.net [218.169.4.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DD03A6CF0; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9M8k8gR9woD48hB31Xg588d@ietf.org> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:13:07 -0500 From: "Gore Delmar" TO: <"v6ops-archive@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, registrar@ietf.org, web-archive@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org, nemo-request@ietf.org, swmp@ietf.org, ltru-bounces"@ietf.org> Subject: reps better than originals Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit There are things in life that seem unattainable. Owning a fine watch doesn't have to be one of them. http://www.vuqinufup.cn Take advantage of Diam0nd Reps tremendous specials, and get yourself a superb designer watch imitation for just a couple of hundred bucks. Plus an extra 15 percent discount when you get two time pieces in the same purchase! http://www.vuqinufup.cn Click here now and enjoy our fast shipping and safe billing method while getting the most realistic look on a fine reproduction timepiece. --===============0267158887==-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 20 18:56:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D813A6832 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:56:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.787 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.492, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_BAYES_5x7=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BWlUrlNbCwwO for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEA43A680B for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lw59Z-000IrS-PC for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:52:05 +0000 Received: from [209.85.198.238] (helo=rv-out-0506.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lw59M-000IqM-OS for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:51:59 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g37so811470rvb.41 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:51:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a4WlF7yliPXna5GzWMvLQATFnw26OpKWLb5bIMWQMUM=; b=r/AcHMwfnhZELvEX/ANNIGOjqC+BCfHWF6PaKfhREXLBCD98xwfhMcFrjZDaYbsZs1 JV4X3VXitUP9iFJLv2GTxhNtBowVfXfajpYhhWVVhPFExl9trdsAnyK4et1DaiVvaxUc Zgy6cKJuPYz2rOv7PsayGTilCswoGSPzK6HTw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=GeZVpIB/k9k+b/kYUX1uk9J3McFf3l/X5nbPYSYjidV4V3Hq7KrpdZu30rMrxDYd+k 29ZJDupMT02F4qB+g7OUKyl4KPjx/Rxe8vBpuzyDy70/oa3jhmGHhBTWGOxOktSv0//j O7zt+oVRMMNke2sxSPB059V0fWf5/sFccFKJo= Received: by 10.141.106.12 with SMTP id i12mr2700738rvm.270.1240278711974; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g22sm16705334rvb.27.2009.04.20.18.51.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49ED26BC.4020902@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:51:56 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: james woodyatt CC: IPv6 Operations , Fred Baker , Kurt Erik Lindqvist , Ron Bonica Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <49E7BEC5.5070300@gmail.com> <36FA1A22-914E-479E-BB4B-9FBAC63B89A6@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <36FA1A22-914E-479E-BB4B-9FBAC63B89A6@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: James, Eliding the points that seem to be resolved... On 2009-04-18 08:03, james woodyatt wrote: > On Apr 16, 2009, at 16:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... >> "2.1. Basic Sanitation >> >> In addition to the functions required of all Internet routers >> [RFC4294], residential gateways are expected to have basic stateless >> filters for prohibiting certains kinds of traffic with invalid >> headers, e.g. martian packets, spoofs, routing header type code zero, >> etc." >> >> I think 'martian' needs a definition. > > Hmmm. That could be an interesting tangent. I thought I mostly covered > the bases of what constitutes the martian addresses in IPv6 in section > 3.1, but I suppose I could have added an explicit prohibition of packets > with V4MAPPED addresses. I didn't think that was necessary, and the > design team didn't consider it, but I wouldn't object to adding it if > there were calls for it here. A forward ref to section 3.1 would cover it just fine. > >> Also, should this section say something about ICMP in general? Still open. >> >> >> In section 2.2: ... >> Also, should this topic also cover 6to4? Hosts behind an IPv6 CPE >> SHOULD NOT use host 6to4 based on RFC3068. > > My assumption was that residential IPv6 CPE would normally prevent this > by using RFC 1918 addressing behind their IPv4 NAT. An explicit > deprecation would only seem necessary in the case of IPv4/NAT gateways > that translate between global addresses across the realm boundary. I > don't think those are very common, are they? Maybe it doesn't need to be formally deprecated - just point out that host 6to4 isn't expected to be relevant when there's an IPv6 CPE. >> However, I have to wonder why this whole topic (Teredo+6to4) is >> relevant to this document. Shouldn't it be in the CPE requirements >> document instead? Still open. >> >> "R2: Packets bearing in their outer IPv6 headers multicast destination >> addresses of equal or narrower scope that the configured scope >> boundary level of the gateway MUST NOT be forwarded in any direction. >> The DEFAULT scope boundary level SHOULD be organization-local scope." >> >> I can't find a definition of "organization-local scope" or even what >> is meant by "configured scope boundary level". Probably the document >> needs >> a short discussion of what it means by "scope". Still open. >> >> "3.3.2. SCTP Filters" >> >> Reading this section, I wondered whether there is anything to say >> about SHIM6? A TCP session over SHIM6 could simply appear, with >> no SYN/ACK, or disappear, as the shim switches addresses. Still open. >> >> "R31: Gateways MUST implement a protocol to permit applications to >> solicit inbound traffic without advance knowledge of the addresses of >> exterior nodes with which they expect to communicate. This protocol >> MUST have a specification that meets the requirements of [RFC5378], >> [RFC3979], [RFC4748] and [RFC4879]." > > I think I should relax both these MUST instances to SHOULD instances > here. The second sentence should probably have an 'if implemented' > conditional phrase after the subject. > >> It sounds good but it doesn't tell a CPE implementor what to code. > > We can't very well tell them to code UPnP IGD for IPv6 until the UPnP > Forum publishes a specification that meets our requirements. We can't > tell them to code ALD, because it's just a draft, and an expired one at > that. We might try to tell them to code MIDCOM, but I say good luck > with that. > > This recommendation is basically a stand-in for a more concrete > recommendation once some kind of de facto standard, if any, emerges. Right, which is why I wonder whether it is a recommendation at all. It seems more like a placeholder. >> I fear you will need to insert the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. > > Why do you think this may be necessary? " Much of the text describing the detailed requirements for TCP and UDP filtering is derived or transposed from [RFC5382] and [RFC4787], and some form of attribution here may therefore be appopriate." Do you have permissions from those authors? If not, you need the disclaimer. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 20 23:43:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB82D3A6EB5 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:43:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f6orrVCEg5Pn for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCAC3A6E51 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:43:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lw9ft-000Fjr-34 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:41:45 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lw9fg-000Fi9-IF for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:41:38 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,222,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="42304828" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2009 06:41:31 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3L6fVhc005219; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:41:31 -0400 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com [10.32.244.219]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3L6fU82002337; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:41:31 GMT Cc: draft-baker-v6ops-greynet@tools.ietf.org Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations , IETF IPv6 Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:41:30 -0700 References: <20090421063001.E9D0E3A6FE3@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=891; t=1240296091; x=1241160091; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Fwd=3A=20I-D=20Action=3Adraft-baker-v6ops-greyn et-00.txt=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20IPv6=20Operations=20,=0A=20=20=2 0=20=20=20=20=20IETF=20IPv6=20Mailing=20List=20; bh=WGCArPTlUmk90Wkdt3bP9vkQNGxDzcq8VTBFyjMnF5w=; b=E2X/9PUujzDRmZTV8mMuNLtebwbOHWuIgK5xlOvei3TaVCzdnRZM3UP31c ZOfwHfvYhunq4Zbt1i4oyFsd+nTEGlYM+p6cMk76o5W8HwVaWpff7Aqdlivk TMvuOHTFQ0; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: oops, wrong list name. I'd still appreciate any thoughts folks have. :-) Begin forwarded message: > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > Date: April 20, 2009 11:30:01 PM PDT > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action:draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : IPv4 and IPv6 Greynets > Author(s) : F. Baker, et al. > Filename : draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2009-04-20 > > This note discusses a feature to support building Greynets for IPv4 > and IPv6. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 20 23:43:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9549E3A69DE for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:43:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.979, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ye-jifSCoZlw for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F093A6E51 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lw9dt-000Fc4-I2 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:39:41 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lw9dg-000FaH-S0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:39:35 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,222,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="42304757" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2009 06:39:26 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3L6dQp3004499; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:39:26 -0400 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com [10.32.244.219]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3L6dQ4o002026; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:39:26 GMT Cc: draft-baker-v6ops-greynet@tools.ietf.org Message-Id: <6CDD0EB0-F155-4369-98E6-4FB594BE9ECB@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations , 6man@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:39:20 -0700 References: <20090421063001.E9D0E3A6FE3@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=858; t=1240295966; x=1241159966; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Fwd=3A=20I-D=20Action=3Adraft-baker-v6ops-greyn et-00.txt=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20IPv6=20Operations=20,=206man@iet f.org; bh=0e7YeweWzgtpjZBUIDkoKqciIlg7rjxQpKf7oqEXhUE=; b=aO+mhcfCgS+3J24819gWJ3sDAndyUIwyt+Z3W942FCt+l0x+wUaDC2qioN OondQVnzApsNCZjhEimIvFjiYx9rRQmo7ahmCew0myi82rGuOAhIz19liqz6 3X9F4fEYqC; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: I'd appreciate any thoughts folks have. Begin forwarded message: > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > Date: April 20, 2009 11:30:01 PM PDT > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action:draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : IPv4 and IPv6 Greynets > Author(s) : F. Baker, et al. > Filename : draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2009-04-20 > > This note discusses a feature to support building Greynets for IPv4 > and IPv6. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From a.vangulik@bismajeur.nl Tue Apr 21 04:35:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C8D3A7020; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:35:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -56.175 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-56.175 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HELO_MISMATCH_NL=1.448, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V7VGKh-QaqDN; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verkaart.nl (86.Red-88-28-40.staticIP.rima-tde.net [88.28.40.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE203A67DA; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:36:38 -0500 From: "Edwards Darrin" TO: <"vpim@ietf.org, nfsv4-request@ietf.org, multimob@ietf.org, pppext-request@ietf.org, v6ops-archive@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, registrar@ietf.org, web-archive@ietf.org, tsv-area"@ietf.org> Subject: Impressive timepieces Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Why waste your hard-earned money on an expensive watch when you can have the next best thing for a tenth of its price? http://www.uidirzxo.cn So, come visit Diam0nd Reps, the famous watch-portal where thousands of satisfied customers have already found that superb imitation time piece for just a few hundred dollars. http://www.uidirzxo.cn Don't delay your pleasure: our incredible watch collection awaits you at Diam0nd Reps, so come visit us now! From aaaa@midcoast.com.au Tue Apr 21 05:57:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94FB3A6A04; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:57:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -47.985 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-47.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a4KBumj60K3g; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from midcoast.com.au (cm124.gamma47.maxonline.com.sg [202.156.47.124]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFB03A6948; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:58:58 -0500 From: "Harris Murray" TO: <"spirits-archive@megatron.ietf.org, smime-archive@megatron.ietf.org, xmldsig-archive@megatron.ietf.org, opes-archive@megatron.ietf.org, kink-archive@megatron.ietf.org, openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org, printmib-archive@megatron.ietf.org, multi6-archive@megatron.ietf.org, v6ops-archive"@megatron.ietf.org> Subject: Inexpensive Louis Vuitton bags Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit What's the fastest way to a lover's heart? A beautiful and stylish designer watch! http://www.uixmonjo.cn Diam0nd Reps has it all: Rolex, Cartier, Tag Heuer, Breitling, and many more, for a fraction of the price of an original watch. And don't forget: when you order two watches, you get an extra 15 percent discount over our already low prices! http://www.uixmonjo.cn Check out our extensive inventory and enjoy the fastest shipping available online! See you at Diam0nd Reps! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 21 07:55:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDFC28C2BC for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:55:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.436 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.941, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W72h1i+4urXz for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9A828C259 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwHK0-000DkP-4l for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:51:40 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwHJl-000Dfw-IA for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:51:33 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,224,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="290093075" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2009 14:51:25 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3LEpO90015541; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:51:25 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com [10.32.244.219]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LEpO6p029494; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:51:24 GMT Cc: "IPv6 Operations" , "IETF IPv6 Mailing List" , Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: "Manfredi, Albert E" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:51:24 -0700 References: <20090421063001.E9D0E3A6FE3@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1325; t=1240325485; x=1241189485; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20I-D=20Action=3Adraft-baker-v6ops-greyne t-00.txt=20 |Sender:=20; bh=zWI0Noi4X1iFm6Oxvr+b0UAQKrPXY1WRZWvfaf2n2YY=; b=HXVx8XDjwZ+QBQUT8Ja8MVhi3uT/wB/JR5RfqSeOngOIh7cBx6HPoXXTvq DwPcuNG2BrLznZo1IKGh6b2lJ4u92/HDAHRD2ulTlFQzKs8DxhWKGqKE/tKs e1wFfVs0gY; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:25 AM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > >>> This note discusses a feature to support building Greynets for IPv4 >>> and IPv6. >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt > > In the IPv6 case, I'm not sure I understand how the "honeypot" host > would know what addresses are unused, in networks where SLAAC is used. I would expect that it would take the router's word that no responder was found for the address. > Also, more of an editorial nature, I believe the layer 2 nitpicks > might > object to the use of "LAN" to mean "IP subnet," unless I missed > something. The IEEE definition of LAN makes it so in practice, these > days, the term only applies to the single link between the layer 2 > switch and one host interface. Gee, in a layer 3 context, I use the term "LAN" to mean a "Local Area Network", a layer 2 domain, perhaps instantiated in a switch or a set of them, that connects some number of layer 3 devices. Examples include Ethernet domains, 802.11, 802.15.4, 802.16, 802.21, ... How does the IEEE define a LAN? I take your point that some of these probably should be translated to "IP Subnet". From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 21 14:51:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA773A6CFD for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:51:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.436 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.941, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DWUR5bXLaog1 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA473A6C59 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwNoB-000901-Sp for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:47:15 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwNnv-0008yv-J5 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:47:09 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,226,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="290370116" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2009 21:46:58 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3LLkwm6011718; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:46:58 -0400 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com [10.32.244.219]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LLkivL028084; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:46:57 GMT Cc: "IPv6 Operations" , "IETF IPv6 Mailing List" , Message-Id: <648F04B0-A79A-4A05-A4E4-9F8AFDB78A49@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: "Manfredi, Albert E" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:46:57 -0700 References: <20090421063001.E9D0E3A6FE3@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1928; t=1240350418; x=1241214418; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20I-D=20Action=3Adraft-baker-v6ops-greyne t-00.txt=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Manfredi,=20Albert=20E=22=20; bh=dZTFyOR8ndRE8SaMaTp84bxfhpBHnm4gBiUBzIdfkCA=; b=f+nuDfKS+MmS62S5QDHswTVtveKtRJFcas6+hwdSRpJBgkSE1vGG9JKHB5 1zHw2ur/4Ldc6zFhaZtAeC2Ne+QiyGLrtkH0EZHdaB6eICOxSy/QHM0ty3t1 gesEYOZN8l; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: So you are saying that the legal definition of a LAN ("a network which crosses no legal boundary"), vs the legal definition of a WAN (" a network that crosses a legal boundary") is irrelevant, and the only agency that defines LANs is IEEE 802? I can think of some folks that might take exception to that. I say that as someone who was building MAC bridges before the term was coined... On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > >> Gee, in a layer 3 context, I use the term "LAN" to mean a >> "Local Area >> Network", a layer 2 domain, perhaps instantiated in a switch >> or a set >> of them, that connects some number of layer 3 devices. Examples >> include Ethernet domains, 802.11, 802.15.4, 802.16, 802.21, ... >> >> How does the IEEE define a LAN? >> >> I take your point that some of these probably should be >> translated to >> "IP Subnet". > > IEEE 802.1D says that a LAN ties together devices with MAC layers. So, > for example, an Ethernet LAN in which (layer 1) hubs interconnect the > hosts will support multiple hosts in a single LAN. But if you > introduce > bridges (aka layer 2 switches), then you're tying together separate > individual LANs into a "bridged LAN," or catenet. > > Clause 6 of 802.1D: > > "MAC Bridges interconnect the separate IEEE 802 LANs that compose a > Bridged Local Area Network by > relaying and filtering frames between the separate MACs of the bridged > LANs." > > So in today's typical networks, the LAN becomes just a single link > between one host and one switch. Seemed odd to me too, but Rich > Seifert > caught me on this more than once. > > What you were adressing, though, seemed to be IP subnets, i.e. > networks > having common IP address prefixes. I guess that the "IP subnet" term > doesn't apply to IPv6. > > Bert From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 21 19:20:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7046C28C313 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:20:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.872, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xJFe6Vu4XooV for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF4F28C393 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwS01-0005kG-7g for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:15:45 +0000 Received: from [209.85.200.168] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwRzp-0005jB-4f for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:15:38 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so40216wff.32 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:15:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ekKL2yYzHWeZ08AGOlQ7xCk87v/t6uKDsbgAHrAfCgM=; b=V/BwfJ7MnXlwraPBukJCBf5ORZK6i8dWFyUGqub42vA/DgTh5hyrxzp5mRxg21BVQb ldJsHFmi98qvnzI0fQjqioo6HHl3WskjazDFZmp1CSGK9RbmEv8PhWX7gacdawEnb6NW RzDTWCCwgycC9/U3XnugyIScJ5uN2Imd6lJpc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=LzlHAMRMInJppcxcTliu5U4K0XZ5WMemiwAVzpsHFGgRPt29ozQ+1m0xkQPnQQalfz /z1zzm9maT0Gm/i0f33s2pIxoPJhQDhKNVsegHPIAOLR8LQp4Wh1fXqE+16M3XLOSF98 aiD3uE3AX6yUJBYtosqlESgR835GdzDXW2T+0= Received: by 10.143.44.17 with SMTP id w17mr4973210wfj.255.1240366532238; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 32sm2482642wfc.16.2009.04.21.19.15.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:15:29 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: As I understand it, this draft defines a canonical form of address representation and recommends that it be used to minimise human confusion. That isn't a bad idea, but IMHO we need a clear statement that humans and algorithms SHOULD generate this format, and that all implementations MUST accept any legitimate RFC4291 format. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 21 20:36:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0143A6C72 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:36:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.88 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.684, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MKF8zFghL2Z9 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B953A6782 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwTDt-000AFq-Bn for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:34:09 +0000 Received: from [202.32.8.193] (helo=tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwTDh-000AF2-6F for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:34:03 +0000 Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.161]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3M3Xr5l021134; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:33:53 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id n3M3XrW10549; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:33:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.82.141.45]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3M3Xqfm025751; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:33:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from bsac29088.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3M3XqiY009428; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:33:52 +0900 Received: from mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgsx5626.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.18.151.10]) by bsac29088.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3M3Xq7X011889; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:33:52 +0900 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bdonet119.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.19.136.119]) (authenticated bits=0) (envelope-from kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp) by mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3M3XqJA015360 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:33:52 +0900 Message-ID: <49EE901F.4090707@mesh.ad.jp> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:33:51 +0900 From: Seiichi Kawamura User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Brian, All Thanks for the comment! > As I understand it, this draft defines a canonical form > of address representation and recommends that it be used > to minimise human confusion. yes. exactly. > That isn't a bad idea, but IMHO we need a clear statement > that humans and algorithms SHOULD generate this format, > and that all implementations MUST accept any legitimate > RFC4291 format. That was sort of my intention with the phrase "The recommendation in this document is one that, complies fully with RFC 4291..." (Section 4.) but maybe I was a bit vague. It would be nice to hear more thoughts on the draft. Thanks, Seiichi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJ7pAfcrhTYfxyMkIRAvXSAJ9m7igwzO/j7YwI3UgxcsBFzgtjZACgjctC jN+gU6+P2pvILCdtdnLvCs8= =Fggu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 21 23:21:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1DA3A67DA for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:21:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.466 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40+QKZDHjIys for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2323A6CB6 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwVlr-000KeM-BH for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:17:23 +0000 Received: from [2001:418:1::81] (helo=nagasaki.bogus.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwVld-000KdX-E4 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:17:15 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.233] (c-98-234-53-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.53.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3M6H3Ei063152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:17:05 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <49EEB65B.8060900@bogus.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:16:59 -0700 From: Joel Jaeggli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fred Baker CC: IPv6 Operations , 6man@ietf.org, draft-baker-v6ops-greynet@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt References: <20090421063001.E9D0E3A6FE3@core3.amsl.com> <6CDD0EB0-F155-4369-98E6-4FB594BE9ECB@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <6CDD0EB0-F155-4369-98E6-4FB594BE9ECB@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/9270/Wed Apr 22 01:52:37 2009 on nagasaki.bogus.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Just one observation, one could imagine if the non-ultilization of a particular address were to produce (semi) persistent state, that you could DOS the router by spraying however many million packets was required to exercise that particular resource. You would not want for example a scenario where a collector present over a tunnel or listening on a subnet were to populate the router with non-existent neighbors in order to continue a conversation. The product of an xor where packets destined for valid neighbors go there and everything else is blindly forwarded to the collector seems plausible. Fred Baker wrote: > I'd appreciate any thoughts folks have. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >> Date: April 20, 2009 11:30:01 PM PDT >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action:draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt >> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> >> Title : IPv4 and IPv6 Greynets >> Author(s) : F. Baker, et al. >> Filename : draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt >> Pages : 8 >> Date : 2009-04-20 >> >> This note discusses a feature to support building Greynets for IPv4 >> and IPv6. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-00.txt >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > From sjux@somervilleinc.com Wed Apr 22 06:10:29 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C516C28C4CF; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -31.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-31.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIFuUNEnQSTg; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp-58-9-208-53.revip2.asianet.co.th (ppp-58-9-208-53.revip2.asianet.co.th [58.9.208.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 70B2D28C423; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Sergio Starks" To: <"snmpconf-archive@megatron.ietf.org, spirits-archive@megatron.ietf.org, trade-archive@megatron.ietf.org, v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org, web-archive@megatron.ietf.org, xmldsig-archive"@megatron.ietf.org> Subject: Rep or Original? Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:11:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3697ozc059842ZLUOsnmpconf-archive@megatron.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://www.bujawaqag.cn At Diam0nd Reps we specialize in fine watches imitations, offering our customers the same beauty and craftsmanship that an original carries, matched by a ridiculously low price that is sometimes hard to believe, but very much true! http://www.bujawaqag.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 22 06:47:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C38C3A6C20 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:47:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.637 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PovgKbSPb-nQ for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416F63A6803 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lwcjl-0008Oe-0a for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:43:41 +0000 Received: from [2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4] (helo=abaddon.unfix.org) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwcjU-0008MO-AA for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:43:33 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:620:20:1001:216:d3ff:fe25:14da] (spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com [IPv6:2001:620:20:1001:216:d3ff:fe25:14da]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B09C1401FEE; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:43:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:43:20 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigCAB33DFB233450411455543F" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigCAB33DFB233450411455543F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brian E Carpenter wrote: > As I understand it, this draft defines a canonical form > of address representation and recommends that it be used > to minimise human confusion. >=20 > That isn't a bad idea, but IMHO we need a clear statement > that humans and algorithms SHOULD generate this format, > and that all implementations MUST accept any legitimate > RFC4291 format. What I tend to do in my programs is accept any and then "rewrite" the address, generally just using getaddrinfo(), then only using the data returned by getaddrinfo; representation to the user can then be done by getnameinfo(). This way one always(*) has the same format. It is a bit 'bad' that one can't store eg /64 inside that structure, now one always have to keep it separate. Greets, Jeroen * =3D unless the function calls do random changes at output time but from= what I have seen all platforms do lowercase hex fully compressed hex outp= ut. --------------enigCAB33DFB233450411455543F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJ7x74KaooUjM+fCMRAmylAJ9F24YoIQxvoAioFSavWU4LVMVOigCgsLdn ehJM/ZPBdWzQCWP2cKTYEAs= =twdc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigCAB33DFB233450411455543F-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 22 08:08:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F3828C576 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:08:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gYUJCyj-oLko for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD9428C268 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lwe1X-000F5D-9d for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:06:07 +0000 Received: from [216.82.253.179] (helo=mail167.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lwe1K-000F35-Fc for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:06:00 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: jhuang1@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1240412752!12351158!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 30173 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2009 15:05:52 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-13.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Apr 2009 15:05:52 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3MF5pNw010087; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:05:52 -0400 Received: from misout7msgusr7a.ugd.att.com (misout7msgusr7a.ugd.att.com [144.155.43.103]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3MF5nxN010068; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:05:49 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:05:48 -0400 Message-ID: <2FFFD6E98F51BE43878BFED80215F83802BC9CBC@misout7msgusr7a.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: <49EE901F.4090707@mesh.ad.jp> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt Thread-Index: AcnC/hhycTfXm0MnSLKswXtf5eankQAWzwog References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EE901F.4090707@mesh.ad.jp> From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" To: "Seiichi Kawamura" , "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: , "IPv6 Operations" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Seiichi,=20 Your draft (section 2.2, near bottom of page 5) references RFC4291 section 2.2 on using '::' "to compress leading or trailing zeros in an address". The example followed in your text doesn't really have either leading or trailing zeros (2001:db8::aaaa:0:0:1, and 2001:db8:0:0:aaaa::1). My reading of RFC4291 text above points to compressing, for example, the IPv6 loopback address to '::1' (leading zeros), but doesn't say about how to deal with multiple "compressible" chunks of zeros. The same paragraph in RFC4291 also says that "The '::' can only appear once in an address". Perhaps that's a better reference for your intention here where one is forced to and has the flexibility to choose only one of the compressible zero strings. Section 4.1, should we say "Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 bit Field" instead of "Handling Leading Zeros" which might also mean "leading zeros of an IPv6 address". Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.3, could we be more explicit and combine these two to say "Use '::' to replace/compress the longest string of zero chunks in an address, where there are two such strings of the same length, the first string is replaced.". Thanks, Jerry -- Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 810 7679 -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Seiichi Kawamura Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org; IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Brian, All Thanks for the comment! > As I understand it, this draft defines a canonical form > of address representation and recommends that it be used > to minimise human confusion. yes. exactly. > That isn't a bad idea, but IMHO we need a clear statement > that humans and algorithms SHOULD generate this format, > and that all implementations MUST accept any legitimate > RFC4291 format. That was sort of my intention with the phrase "The recommendation in this document is one that, complies fully with RFC 4291..." (Section 4.) but maybe I was a bit vague. It would be nice to hear more thoughts on the draft. Thanks, Seiichi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJ7pAfcrhTYfxyMkIRAvXSAJ9m7igwzO/j7YwI3UgxcsBFzgtjZACgjctC jN+gU6+P2pvILCdtdnLvCs8=3D =3DFggu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stuntman@centrum.sk Wed Apr 22 10:57:29 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF2228C531; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.63 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vyMTcsSCYDAp; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 114-47-128-31.dynamic.hinet.net (114-47-128-31.dynamic.hinet.net [114.47.128.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DF7128C4C3; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Suzanne Oakley" To: <"v6ops-archive@ietf.org, vcarddav@ietf.org, videomgmt@ietf.org, vpim@ietf.org, vpim-request@ietf.org, vpn-dir"@ietf.org> Subject: Affordable brand name watches Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:58:32 -0500 Message-ID: <5383nwm775830CLKCv6ops-archive@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit What's the fastest way to a lover's heart? A beautiful and stylish designer watch! http://www.uinojsyo.cn So, come visit Diam0nd Reps, the famous watch-portal where thousands of satisfied customers have already found that superb imitation time piece for just a few hundred dollars. http://www.uinojsyo.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From vpim-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 22 10:57:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C16128C532 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The results of your email commands From: vpim-bounces@ietf.org To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0723989763==" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:30 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: vpim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: Voice Profile for Internet Mail Discussion Archive X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: vpim-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: vpim-bounces@ietf.org --===============0723989763== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The results of your email command are provided below. Attached is your original message. - Unprocessed: http://www.uinojsyo.cn So, come visit Diam0nd Reps, the famous watch-portal where thousands of satisfied customers have already found that superb imitation time piece for just a few hundred dollars. http://www.uinojsyo.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! - Done. --===============0723989763== Content-Type: message/rfc822 MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: X-Original-To: vpim-request@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: vpim-request@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF2228C531; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.63 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vyMTcsSCYDAp; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 114-47-128-31.dynamic.hinet.net (114-47-128-31.dynamic.hinet.net [114.47.128.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DF7128C4C3; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Suzanne Oakley" To: <"v6ops-archive@ietf.org, vcarddav@ietf.org, videomgmt@ietf.org, vpim@ietf.org, vpim-request@ietf.org, vpn-dir"@ietf.org> Subject: Affordable brand name watches Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:58:32 -0500 Message-ID: <5383nwm775830CLKCv6ops-archive@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit What's the fastest way to a lover's heart? A beautiful and stylish designer watch! http://www.uinojsyo.cn So, come visit Diam0nd Reps, the famous watch-portal where thousands of satisfied customers have already found that superb imitation time piece for just a few hundred dollars. http://www.uinojsyo.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! --===============0723989763==-- From lashawn.pierce@remingtoncollege.edu Wed Apr 22 11:27:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668FD3A6D02; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:27:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS=2.912, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YZtdoeQzk9p7; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 233-3-124-91.pool.ukrtel.net (233-3-124-91.pool.ukrtel.net [91.124.3.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F83C3A6F39; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:27:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Felix Rose" To: <"uri-review@ietf.org, uri-review-bounces@ietf.org, uri-review-owner@ietf.org, uri-review-request@ietf.org, urlreg-archive@ietf.org, urn-archive@ietf.org, v6ops-archive"@ietf.org> Subject: Beautiful Jaeger LeCoultre watches for less Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:28:27 -0500 Message-ID: <9250lla844411RXBBuri-review@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A fine designer watch says means refinement and money. A fine, non-expensive designer watch also means intelligence! http://www.feraxoges.cn At Diam0nd Reps we specialize in fine watches imitations, offering our customers the same beauty and craftsmanship that an original carries, matched by a ridiculously low price that is sometimes hard to believe, but very much true! http://www.feraxoges.cn Only Diam0nd Reps offers you unsurpassed quality and award-winning customer service. So, what are you waiting for? From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 22 14:56:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE9F28C147 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:56:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.36 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.865, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sre9YAda+1a4 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F71828C533 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:56:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwkNI-000NZY-AH for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:53:00 +0000 Received: from [209.85.198.239] (helo=rv-out-0506.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwkN6-000NYr-FW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:52:54 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g37so142859rvb.41 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:52:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lrMvtVK1cpukSByl8In3HptosqxL0b1jejjLCx5Fjbw=; b=AyKOWS6nV9nOZg3ddrNnHlYCjKAxGFYwFilJDnYUfb5I6lLB30bVvZyJPMAkDoJ7Pc UJFldMhsFHdUjpv4MN4xVVZIe9hbblL1yYLskdQ/OcVTJKheVjCk6yWuMfhjvgiLREj4 VS8i3nJ3mbqEMI8Y4xcJWOgjGmThVh26sXIO8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=msscnLu4AOi9xBUkD1mJNGs7WCFJPv/sio0atfbxLBjBcweTNGlz4hz5RU0cpnlSBn V4zF0Mvj7P6uiighJ5FsfKlckjZeOK4+kspx7xnEOzRxCPwAXPEjOcScXSjkikLMRvqR LN4DGLKuiPVcPcVvaDMt0+z2GhBy6N7grMRLw= Received: by 10.141.196.8 with SMTP id y8mr63534rvp.298.1240437168113; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g14sm945408rvb.34.2009.04.22.14.52.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:52:44 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar CC: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Jeroen, On 2009-04-23 01:43, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> As I understand it, this draft defines a canonical form >> of address representation and recommends that it be used >> to minimise human confusion. >> >> That isn't a bad idea, but IMHO we need a clear statement >> that humans and algorithms SHOULD generate this format, >> and that all implementations MUST accept any legitimate >> RFC4291 format. > > What I tend to do in my programs is accept any and then "rewrite" the > address, generally just using getaddrinfo(), then only using the data > returned by getaddrinfo; representation to the user can then be done by > getnameinfo(). This way one always(*) has the same format. It is a bit > 'bad' that one can't store eg /64 inside that structure, now one always > have to keep it separate. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > * = unless the function calls do random changes at output time but from > what I have seen all platforms do lowercase hex fully compressed hex output. Does "fully compressed" express :0: as ::? The draft recommends against that. However, I agree that making the canonical format the same as is generated by the existing API code seems like a Good Thing. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 22 20:56:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445AD3A6918 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:56:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.709 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.513, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RaGJQcDBLkaE for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204513A6881 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwpyT-000Lvj-3n for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:51:45 +0000 Received: from [202.32.8.206] (helo=tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwpyF-000LuQ-CU for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:51:37 +0000 Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.192]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3N3pOq8005743; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:51:24 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id n3N3pO100366; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:51:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.82.141.45]) by mailsv3.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3N3pN9E006159; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:51:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from bsac29088.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3N3pNI7021223; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:51:23 +0900 Received: from mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgsx5626.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.18.151.10]) by bsac29088.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3N3pNwY020334; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:51:23 +0900 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bdonet119.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.19.136.119]) (authenticated bits=0) (envelope-from kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp) by mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3N3pNRn007431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:51:23 +0900 Message-ID: <49EFE5BA.6000108@mesh.ad.jp> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:51:22 +0900 From: Seiichi Kawamura User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" CC: Brian E Carpenter , draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EE901F.4090707@mesh.ad.jp> <2FFFD6E98F51BE43878BFED80215F83802BC9CBC@misout7msgusr7a.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: <2FFFD6E98F51BE43878BFED80215F83802BC9CBC@misout7msgusr7a.ugd.att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jerry Thanks! > Your draft (section 2.2, near bottom of page 5) references RFC4291 > section 2.2 on using '::' "to compress leading or trailing zeros in an > address". The example followed in your text doesn't really have either > leading or trailing zeros (2001:db8::aaaa:0:0:1, and > 2001:db8:0:0:aaaa::1). My reading of RFC4291 text above points to > compressing, for example, the IPv6 loopback address to '::1' (leading > zeros), but doesn't say about how to deal with multiple "compressible" > chunks of zeros. The same paragraph in RFC4291 also says that "The '::' > can only appear once in an address". Perhaps that's a better reference > for your intention here where one is forced to and has the flexibility > to choose only one of the compressible zero strings. I agree. Bad choice of words on my part. This, we'll have to fix. > Section 4.1, should we say "Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 bit Field" > instead of "Handling Leading Zeros" which might also mean "leading zeros > of an IPv6 address". Good idea. > Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.3, could we be more explicit and combine these > two to say "Use '::' to replace/compress the longest string of zero > chunks in an address, where there are two such strings of the same > length, the first string is replaced.". I understand. In 4.2.1, I was trying to explicitly say that one should take the longest string of zeros and compress it fully. There's one router I know that takes 2001:db8:1:1:1:: and shows it as 2001:db8:1:1:1::0 Let me think about this one. Regards, Seiichi HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS wrote: > Seiichi, > Your draft (section 2.2, near bottom of page 5) references RFC4291 > section 2.2 on using '::' "to compress leading or trailing zeros in an > address". The example followed in your text doesn't really have either > leading or trailing zeros (2001:db8::aaaa:0:0:1, and > 2001:db8:0:0:aaaa::1). My reading of RFC4291 text above points to > compressing, for example, the IPv6 loopback address to '::1' (leading > zeros), but doesn't say about how to deal with multiple "compressible" > chunks of zeros. The same paragraph in RFC4291 also says that "The '::' > can only appear once in an address". Perhaps that's a better reference > for your intention here where one is forced to and has the flexibility > to choose only one of the compressible zero strings. > > Section 4.1, should we say "Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 bit Field" > instead of "Handling Leading Zeros" which might also mean "leading zeros > of an IPv6 address". > > Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.3, could we be more explicit and combine these > two to say "Use '::' to replace/compress the longest string of zero > chunks in an address, where there are two such strings of the same > length, the first string is replaced.". > > Thanks, > Jerry > -- > Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 810 7679 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Seiichi Kawamura > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:34 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org; IPv6 > Operations > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt > > Hi Brian, All > > Thanks for the comment! > >> As I understand it, this draft defines a canonical form >> of address representation and recommends that it be used >> to minimise human confusion. > > yes. exactly. > >> That isn't a bad idea, but IMHO we need a clear statement >> that humans and algorithms SHOULD generate this format, >> and that all implementations MUST accept any legitimate >> RFC4291 format. > > That was sort of my intention with the phrase > "The recommendation in this document is one that, > complies fully with RFC 4291..." (Section 4.) > but maybe I was a bit vague. > > It would be nice to hear more thoughts on the draft. > > Thanks, > Seiichi - -- ########################################## NEC BIGLOBE Ltd. Platform Systems Division Seiichi Kawamura TEL : 03-3798-6085 (FAX: 03-3798-6029) Mobile: 090-1547-4791 ########################################## -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJ7+W6crhTYfxyMkIRAtb5AJ4xFo7lN234s+BxvHFAwZ84ZxWVXwCggEHI hqkuDWfXaSvCwVmVlF1aRF0= =A87N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 22 21:16:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FBF3A6CF0 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:16:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.206 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yqzahBUFgp8O for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3A53A6A68 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwqMb-000NbF-3i for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:16:41 +0000 Received: from [202.32.8.206] (helo=tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwqMO-000NaL-Nw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:16:34 +0000 Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.197]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3N4GPBl022714; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:16:25 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id n3N4GPf24441; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:16:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.82.141.45]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3N4GOts013883; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:16:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from bsac29088.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3N4GO8p023624; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:16:24 +0900 Received: from mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgsx5626.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.18.151.10]) by bsac29088.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3N4GOa3021039; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:16:24 +0900 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bdonet119.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.19.136.119]) (authenticated bits=0) (envelope-from kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp) by mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n3N4GOB2007721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:16:24 +0900 Message-ID: <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:16:23 +0900 From: Seiichi Kawamura User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: Jeroen Massar , draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Brian, Jeroen > Does "fully compressed" express :0: as ::? The draft recommends against that. with inet_ntop if (best.base != -1 && best.len < 2) best.base = -1; ":0:" will return true for the if statement, which means that it won't be compressed. Most major operating systems (Unix, routers, etc) will not compress a single 0 field, but there are a few out there that will... Regards, Seiichi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJ7+uXcrhTYfxyMkIRAiB3AJ0SNuHyHkj6F4gPMv4roC5rWKoN0wCffX0y WcYgWhATLtzY02hXcV7mtOY= =49zZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 23 00:29:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502043A71C6 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:29:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.204 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.808, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NGrrPgpu7gJa for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7C43A6A44 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwtKY-000BVS-U0 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:26:46 +0000 Received: from [202.32.8.193] (helo=tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwtKM-000BUG-FI for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:26:40 +0000 Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.162]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3N7QUr3001269; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:26:30 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id n3N7QU104288; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:26:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from s254008.necat.nec.co.jp (s254008.necat.nec.co.jp [10.24.144.53]) by mailsv3.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3N7QTJa027865; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:26:30 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by s254008.necat.nec.co.jp (8.12.8/8.12.8) id n3N7Q5QI022708; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:26:05 +0900 Received: from mail.necat.nec.co.jp [10.24.144.32] by s254008.necat.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id SAA22707; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:26:05 +0900 Received: from szap158.trd.necat.nec.co.jp (EHLO siznecatg159178) ([10.3.159.178]) by mail.necat.nec.co.jp (MOS 3.10.4-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIC62376 (AUTH kawashimam); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:26:28 +0900 (JST) To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Jeroen Massar , draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 Operations , Seiichi Kawamura Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-01.txt In-reply-to: <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> References: <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> Message-Id: <20090423162749kawashimam@mail.necat.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: StarOffice21/MailClient[4.65 Step9] From: Masanobu Kawashima Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:27:49 +0900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Brian, All Thanks for the comment. RFC4291 is described as "one or more groups". Many operators would think that there are more than one 16 bit field. Therefore , we recommend "two or more groups". Fortunately, inet_ntop() is "two or more groups". :) Regards, Masanobu >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Hi Brian, Jeroen > >> Does "fully compressed" express :0: as ::? The draft recommends against that. > >with inet_ntop > > if (best.base != -1 && best.len < 2) > best.base = -1; > >":0:" will return true for the if statement, >which means that it won't be compressed. > >Most major operating systems (Unix, routers, etc) >will not compress a single 0 field, but there are >a few out there that will... > >Regards, >Seiichi >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > >iD8DBQFJ7+uXcrhTYfxyMkIRAiB3AJ0SNuHyHkj6F4gPMv4roC5rWKoN0wCffX0y >WcYgWhATLtzY02hXcV7mtOY= >=49zZ >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 23 02:50:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26E23A7212 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:50:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v2B2RqvMaif9 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4953A720E for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwvY1-000OOk-F3 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:48:49 +0000 Received: from [2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe72:d05d] (helo=a.painless.aaisp.net.uk) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwvXm-000OMT-1A for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:48:42 +0000 Received: from tactless.ec.aaisp.net.uk ([2001:8b0:0:2:21d:60ff:fedd:9e63]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LwvXi-0004Hk-KP for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:48:30 +0100 Message-ID: <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:48:30 +0100 From: Adrian Kennard User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Kennard family X-Info: Organization Header added by smtp.aaisp.net.uk based on Authenticated ID Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: OK, sorry if this is out of place. I am working on router code (gigabit low power BGP IPv4/6 router hardware of our own design), and have some ideas for ways to simplify the set up of IPv6 tunnels using BGP in a couple of ways. One of which would solve a BGP/IPv6 tunnel issue we have encountered already. Would this be best done via this mailing list or the GROW mailing list? Any pointers on best way for me to discuss the ideas, confirm if there is an RFC or draft covering it (not found one yet) and draft an RFC is not? Feel free to point me at a web site that tells me what to do. Thanks for any help. Adrian. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 23 03:38:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140673A7245 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:38:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gUuwqbarjrfP for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4213A71FE for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwwJ8-0003Cy-HN for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:37:30 +0000 Received: from [2001:738:0:411::241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwwIu-0003Ak-5v for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:37:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E62885081; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:37:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mignon.ki.iif.hu Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id kXBWVMdLL-Ly; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 948DB8507E; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8EB84F43; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:37:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: Adrian Kennard cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling In-Reply-To: <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> Message-ID: References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Adrian, Are you referring 6PE (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4798) or something new? Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Adrian Kennard wrote: > OK, sorry if this is out of place. I am working on router code (gigabit low > power BGP IPv4/6 router hardware of our own design), and have some ideas for > ways to simplify the set up of IPv6 tunnels using BGP in a couple of ways. > One of which would solve a BGP/IPv6 tunnel issue we have encountered already. > > Would this be best done via this mailing list or the GROW mailing list? > > Any pointers on best way for me to discuss the ideas, confirm if there is an > RFC or draft covering it (not found one yet) and draft an RFC is not? > > Feel free to point me at a web site that tells me what to do. > > Thanks for any help. > > Adrian. > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 23 04:20:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143533A726D for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5RZM7j0v5Z-B for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BD43A6F6A for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwwxK-0008fu-5x for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:19:02 +0000 Received: from [2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe72:d05d] (helo=a.painless.aaisp.net.uk) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lwwx4-0008ds-MX for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:18:55 +0000 Received: from tactless.ec.aaisp.net.uk ([2001:8b0:0:2:21d:60ff:fedd:9e63]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lwwx1-0007ZA-Op; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:18:43 +0100 Message-ID: <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:18:43 +0100 From: Adrian Kennard User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mohacsi Janos CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Kennard family X-Info: Organization Header added by smtp.aaisp.net.uk based on Authenticated ID Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Mohacsi Janos wrote: > Hi Adrian, > Are you referring 6PE (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4798) or > something new? Not MPLS, no. Its IPv6 over IPv4 (protocol 41) tunnels and how to link IPv6 islands in a more seamless way using BGP. If this is the right place to raise the issue I'll provide a few more details of the issues and solution if you like. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 23 05:12:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1627F3A694D for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.417 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fH0c6+m5y3PX for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0A93A68E7 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lwxls-000EMj-WF for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:11:17 +0000 Received: from [2001:670:86:3001::1] (helo=netcore.fi) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lwxlc-000ELK-Uw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:11:08 +0000 Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NCAjcB032428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:10:46 +0300 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id n3NCAjui032425; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:10:45 +0300 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:10:45 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Adrian Kennard cc: Mohacsi Janos , v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling In-Reply-To: <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> Message-ID: References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at otso.netcore.fi X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Adrian Kennard wrote: > Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> Hi Adrian, >> Are you referring 6PE (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4798) or >> something new? > > Not MPLS, no. Its IPv6 over IPv4 (protocol 41) tunnels and how to link IPv6 > islands in a more seamless way using BGP. > > If this is the right place to raise the issue I'll provide a few more details > of the issues and solution if you like. Maybe you should take a look at the softwire WG. They're dealing with similar problems. But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, the RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels over GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations. This was explicitly _removed_ because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general purpose BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism. [1] take a look at e.g: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00 -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 23 06:04:29 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05003A6E2C for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:04:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 901w1xU8gUld for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33C23A67CC for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwyZn-000LDD-Vc for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:02:51 +0000 Received: from [209.85.220.169] (helo=mail-fx0-f169.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwyZV-000LBj-It for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:02:43 +0000 Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17so247685fxm.41 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:02:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zjpMiq/zmI3uOJn0hEqZ+VJg5cFnMUuTrtZ7Zjqgzeg=; b=v6YktS0AfQkRyVKILC4Kz4yaKljycZLnkJcWhr/NGSAQq/d7HcJu8MNSkHW9pxQIqS 39x+SNL4ca2DSOkW7tqvKuXqDaaRN+xAsz0gvfx5lOYuobizeOom0PtYpocOyaM3GU/G uuz5vtzHtwwmBKafWdV1AIzEWaz+Il0zcO2tU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=rSKoKWcmAKBEBLPUDhwZYjhziqu8ytcPRnlThAy0JAiMEr2IRgGmFYqig9TlBvW8SZ +lxnlWfKCzdjRyYVF4tW8guXIxd1QShw00lLx20HLH+4H5ticX2O44A1P6+izT7BRFho 6G/PxbaTm1UOphKScO9ekoxwPryrC929qZCOw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.121.131 with SMTP id h3mr933303bkr.66.1240491752090; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:02:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:02:32 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: b0141a26c54332e0 Message-ID: <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling From: Ole Troan To: Pekka Savola Cc: Adrian Kennard , Mohacsi Janos , v6ops@ops.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, th= e > RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels over > GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations. =A0This was explicitly _removed_ > because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general purp= ose > BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism. > > [1] take a look at e.g: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00 I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents? obviously my memory isn't serving me right. you can still do BGP tunnelling with existing mechanisms. PEs are connected through a full mesh of BGP peerings. each PE has an automatic tunnelling interface (6to4, automatic tunnelling). BGP next-hops are the 6to4/v4compatible address. note that 6to4 is only used internally and the sites connecting to the PE uses native addresses. cheers, Ole From lacobie@agoric.com Thu Apr 23 06:45:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DC83A6D12 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:45:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SKANOVA=0.66, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nh+bsjARW-WZ for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h76n1c1o848.bredband.skanova.com (h21n1c1o848.bredband.skanova.com [81.225.72.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E6D103A72B2 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:42:32 -0700 (PDT) To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: from v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: v6ops-archive@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090423134232.E6D103A72B2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

Ottho Heldringstraat 9, 42930 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From trigonometryn9@oreilly.com Thu Apr 23 07:03:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704973A727B; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:03:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -81.738 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-81.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DYN_RDNS_AND_INLINE_IMAGE=0.001, FH_FAKE_RCVD_LINE_B=5.777, HELO_DYNAMIC_DIALIN=3.384, HELO_EQ_DIP_DIALIN=1.573, HOST_EQ_DIP_TDIAL=2.144, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n+CcelgJBJnX; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:03:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p5B264022.dip.t-dialin.net (p5B26663E.dip.t-dialin.net [91.38.102.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775553A6D8B; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 91.38.102.62 by smtp2.oreilly.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:03:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c9c41c$474ee150$6400a8c0@trigonometryn9> From: "Summer Gomes" To: Subject: Sprechen-Vous Italiano? Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:03:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0075_01C9C41C.474EE150" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C9C41C.474EE150 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0076_01C9C41C.474EE150" ------=_NextPart_001_0076_01C9C41C.474EE150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable like this one for instance my older brother uploaded it while reminiscing a= bout the old buggie he rebuilt in the 80s=20 it was the first time i realized that things dont always go how you think t= hey will and that it all can turn out better than you imagined i am determined even more obsessed with flickr than usual of late acre of land is my favorite song of his=20 i was born in orange county where my parents had lived in the same house fo= r like 20 years they had both lived in so cal all their lives=20 but the pattern is still available you love him too right one more thought about best friends what do you look for in a best friend from anthro dinner i kind of snack or have a lunch type meal again dinner is tricky bec= ause i still need to prepare dinner for my family so i do but im not super = hungry at night so i just eat whatever broccoli a little of what theyre hav= ing or snacky stuff or chicken wings or crispy thin crust pizza but i alway= s end the day with a low carb ice cream bar what im listening to this morningagain grant and i listened and danced to his music on valentines day=20 dear anne shirley its been a long time since i last wrote but i need your a= dvice i am planning a primary activity for this spring since our theme for = the year is my eternal family and we like to have our activities point the = children to what they are learning i thought it might be nice if we have a = picnic on or near the grounds of the mt timpanogos temple and let them bask= in the beauty of that place and reflect on the importance of their own ete= rnal family ready to share the love but let me tell you thats not how it will really go i imagine most kids wil= l want to stay home and play computer games but their moms will make them c= ome and so theyll grudgingly put on a some church pants and skirts so i was= wondering if you could help me know how to bring the romance back into our= modern life its not really that important no matter the dress or the menu = we just want the kids to come to feel the spirit of the temple but its like= you said anne when you dont use your imagination to make life beautiful ho= w much you miss i will i will i will please hold me accountable if you dont see the results= posted next week the inspiration pieces i think they are so cute i love her litte handwriting and she is beyond exc= ited to pass them out some other projects she and i looked at but didnt get= around to (of course) from martha (of course) confession i miss saved by the bell ------=_NextPart_001_0076_01C9C41C.474EE150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
3D""
like this one for instance my older brother uploade= d it while reminiscing about the old buggie he rebuilt in the 80s
it was the first time i realized that things dont a= lways go how you think they will and that it all can turn out better than y= ou imagined
i am determined
even more obsessed with flickr than usual of late
acre of land is my favorite song of his
=
i was born in orange county where my parents had li= ved in the same house for like 20 years they had both lived in so cal all t= heir lives
but the pattern is still available
you love him too right
one more thought about best friends
what do you look for in a best friend
from anthro
dinner i kind of snack or have a lunch type meal ag= ain dinner is tricky because i still need to prepare dinner for my family s= o i do but im not super hungry at night so i just eat whatever broccoli a l= ittle of what theyre having or snacky stuff or chicken wings or crispy thin= crust pizza but i always end the day with a low carb ice cream bar
what im listening to this morningagain
grant and i listened and danced to his music on val= entines day
dear anne shirley its been a long time since i last= wrote but i need your advice i am planning a primary activity for this spr= ing since our theme for the year is my eternal family and we like to have o= ur activities point the children to what they are learning i thought it mig= ht be nice if we have a picnic on or near the grounds of the mt timpanogos = temple and let them bask in the beauty of that place and reflect on the imp= ortance of their own eternal family
ready to share the love
but let me tell you thats not how it will really go= i imagine most kids will want to stay home and play computer games but the= ir moms will make them come and so theyll grudgingly put on a some church p= ants and skirts so i was wondering if you could help me know how to bring t= he romance back into our modern life its not really that important no matte= r the dress or the menu we just want the kids to come to feel the spirit of= the temple but its like you said anne when you dont use your imagination t= o make life beautiful how much you miss
i will i will i will please hold me accountable if = you dont see the results posted next week the inspiration pieces
=
i think they are so cute i love her litte handwriti= ng and she is beyond excited to pass them out some other projects she and i= looked at but didnt get around to (of course) from martha (of course)
<= /FONT>
confession i miss saved by the bell
 ------=_NextPart_001_0076_01C9C41C.474EE150-- ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C9C41C.474EE150 Content-Type: image/png; name="DSL3400.png" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAZAAAADwCAMAAAAZ4sIQAAAABGdBTUEAAK/INwWK6QAAABl0RVh0 U29mdHdhcmUAQWRvYmUgSW1hZ2VSZWFkeXHJZTwAAABgUExURe7w8A5arFGs1eENDZrW6ppqD+2w DjqYyvDHa/PSivLHFuu4TiGHu9rq8OevNdaLFuicC22/38ZyEteXIeClLv3x1Hp+goTD4OOlGOGZ K7jj8cqAG/rksMMomim3Uf///8wIjrsAAB5qSURBVHja7J2HgqowEEUBXUFBLOAqqOT///KlM2kU DZZ9RHdFEMsc75SoQ4Dm8VEjmE3wTUCCLR41+bedyb0dSEBQBGJs+7D8ktH5WD2b59ENRMFBBuJU Are1Z5NPBoTi2OqDKCWwMxFAyCW7+AW6oVfZAvwP7yAMxUVIB7sSyq1sXdhuVLbbhrILuLlxp0i5 U7SgQ1wu5Bq6iJSNfAW7UB9d3YEsOxf6gQR1TQxvEmFUbDoxgPz+itXiKt8KVtqBtCYL5cpQwkKW 7fI+VByOuwM7wRVitbRva+jWZgIQIGAFIkGCDa4FZc/AIQ8TR03ONTnXfE2PQpBuewDEEm8sQHQA zut2IK6704HAR5bmkUDAkmpCbbMOBBk0HwZSK+6q3rYkGI6aLpENDwOx+U1gnB4LDgEShnZv6Aai W8sGBNquCwjc4Vkg2F0FCo66riUGOAik4BkgksvbgUDX13r1zwCyraGXApKwj62R9v6KeIHUoI60 oP7bC0SuAGYzfIwWocM2Xji9l4UvZLJog3rrdWQU1o0uYXQA6Qjqhq8L3DwsIJb1Eg66Lni+9giQ 9oZ3WFDJwGz+plMhbiACipoiKVmWUyFDgHQoRE+ydCAtDxk2BAsBQb3EjILpgMjEFdl8jvrGHgBE uzu7Y7NYshuIoqcHXFaXQgQPFYUqC3M8PatiBwKWrVmWmhz1ZlnWuDMky7IEeiP31byZryzL5GHC OIsTPeMFPHxVp1ZnxGs7k1gvkHAUEKMMcQBZDAQyvA5Rdg10HnWLQ6FB7G8fy3MdeAUSgvit+hvT e+mexl2p6zMBICDZC3UVg6NSh0DUiAB2sIcOABEQCXR9CByAhpuFGPX8GYD/uaztkuDgPCwsDuRE Bvt/ENfphmAG4htIUNdSHlwdUBkH54jIv3oG4htILWty4awECRNGFEWMBFnAJ7w0A/EMpHVWEIcF BgEQxzEHQf6RcQhmIAj9/HgDggMIrP/sborbngKJ+TUxtj6BsBf2Q4b9ReN/g168ekf2OxxxB8ZG urrdZDytBx45EA6rGwdVAsaQUW3EeDkCROIoFkCa54HIF2F9zzlW262p3NHAPX9GPRN4c+M2P2jU IwNbbJcglKs0IumVqKNiQA7kUsKwA2kaDY5c0fDRrRD4KsAbUTOvfP/RNe06yx2pd8j2ALtbgAx4 Jgg+E/4gqhrAI3c8qmqLrQtHxCI3UQYVxoGqg8qDE4nJAj5vgaknBdK+amo77eWKdf1A5J/+9h0J RHsm4tk5gDgfVbUFpAHT2YidYuqisDoImogCIoPjYMsBsLRGph9VLxAE3k3ghZkvV/Mco4H86HLp eCbapQJEfS1jgQSMx1kBwgwv/rOQzjFETCYxA8SACEM3zGv5BmJGTu4bDCCKQf0rxLKgPBPdZRnP YAgQUx4sm2L2J8LAK7L4IF0VJQQFEp8BkIEx5FGFSB+svza5w6RAdIX8qM9EvCu0LG0UkEDBEXEt RLzeYHpgbIRgWJCPIskjrqWhhwd19FgMsQL5eQ7Is0FdAfJj82Y2IK6gXqu+iggDJlGEywFE84jL A+iDeSzN0m4g4qYdaW/rBjqAtIXAj9Vl6XdkuUMFpr3QcD8TUIfYXdaPdgdDHhXbAqgjziQEmudy DxXzsEHX6t6KVCdLZBLpBoK6sqzXF8k+amw/jxqggOMQCZUIFQfuq8iVjEUTXqzH4iRHoAbvFwN5 oAL3uLvnRw3QlkxY8epPxmyuClZj8NlECSOK2vSKlCjZGdgZ9QJpplDIH5pc3EaHdo5Q1hwiZBxA 1gtmSqA8sihoq3QTiBFUZKEyA7ECqQ9gWorav02t2KcdkTpLAoFk5KRFkAYsNoKDuqIny/rPgcBp QpDrxlGkzeiySUUtnmOHFZjVXxcQpJchMxANiDB1DKLEITpEBwsL6K0yphBl5t3DbO+7R/NuIIof 4tEjkvIQWy3yoP4qW6KvBNI0PUAUtZv1U9M0zTRAAlFViPBxAChUhSi5LtMHzLA+A0gzzFSu27R+ FdzQvKKs9QsEHQQODkVMHppxXOVBT1Hg50m84q0/5GZ0Oq5pVATy1vKKstY3kG2sjEg/gQuIg5y1 APJJQGRKobmghifm3KptTt4qQMlP3gAEnVUescLBLMspEIrDE48pgAhjNlr1A2l0A1H80muBBJpC hH8CkSU2kl2KpEafCKQRFjNcj7rBFgfaZN0IGSanqYDgRMs1InMV91YESR2gz1eIG4g9U2p0CShl rPszUZ9AMJHMwSLSqWQyfmRLv0/iU4FYUy00pcuSGsn4X8dgPOiog28HAizaBonGkteabquHB/g6 u/XHPv222EZZH5EM0sh+a+/viomyLISMFU4g6scHjVYgatVihz6O7U8NjgukLdjwyd8mtF+2Pmcy Qtig8DowY1DC2Gc3mndNnVhN6sUNjVPI4sjPqi3qKFOjBF0Sa+g5EwqJthP4zT8ChPwS574Qv94V iwgvKL+qWsgeEHaFkOUlLDOkiwJxnOMIz35N+Kdme8WPr8h7ngM4Sh0Iyy+OEMLizs+GLYJllCm1 RtYGDXaNyqT2/Br+FBAaKlgMoYuLY/u7tSM5L0SAYYsdCqHX67MMIcxJCSZCO+HvFs1ABijkLhbv 3DHd+Wq2zP/12yLYLiMjnsukOIyW/l/D3/qASoshR9BW6L6QPQn4LXsVwpPg5Zlh4HPwYu4ki89T GG/+xLDfFkGwPZ/jX6iT34lwyCcR/Ndj0JszqJfnc/QbkfPTP36eFeLFFsEnPIkZyH/4JGYgM5AZ yAxkBjID+dtAgtPttubjdjsFnwDkK/sj+7DFep3mZZ7nKR5JkpCLPE3WE2AJxuFAX9gf+VlbnG4J JpEkazluaywWLBcCJlmf3ggEoS/sj/yULU7rkkjBHITIiTgxLJX1LXgHkG/tj/y4LYK0zG0wyEgE FkwFK8WbTrYTAfmg/siPAsGeKl2vnTzoKWEB/oR1ktzeD+Q7+iM/BuSWusSR8DPhwQZVSuIHyURA BBQ1RXpPf+RHgKzTssNXMR6EBOVBAj7OuIhKTu8G8g39kR8Akl7c6hC+qhUIY4LdW1KmQCTN1EC+ tT/yeCDr3KUMiWKtsEgTXqDk5ckCRP8emfb92CeAfGV/5LFAgiQHeVQiQngbyLXBK0XKJC3TU2tp e2cNyw90HwTypf2RxwJpeSTgZEqDwsAcGImUVe95sYZWR/buTOD3uDou719j+fq5LOqvEtfJlEcL BOPI85I6rY52We0XYuHiDMQF5FYyGSgEDGVwTyWiR8ujqso16myXNQMZByRJ1BzKxoIrQ/FWKZNH VRUJ6myXNQMZBQQ7LDsBNcXdFTyxAjQIj7IqdqkaQ5C9O1bT/uhvYiBDG/t+3oOSjnJlD40krQgL +i9J2Xw854FxFEVxZUA62mVZWp08C8Tdo9jei3J8M2WtUdkQGl6ArPOkh0daXHn0SDGCa8FjBwVC eAggHe2ymtZdgcUngGjd83rerCNaGmu9HdHw7ma+gJRpG6+Fe9ICR14IVRR5kgNvRXjsrtfrWhaG znZZyqqn017FWLBRq9KO8pGWxrKToNY5UXRTlPugQQ86HsiplFGCnxJR9fEEN0lLDKQsrqTkqEog D6aP67W4od52Wb6BgMbrbbtqtX3uQy2Nf+SFDkTvuznoQccDScoWhUSQlNeyvYph5FQdZAkPqA+M 43jNHdW43p3JCP3PKcTSatSwjbpLH5C2baURQ2DTU3vrcy9hJEApmJgSKVSelEVJr5EogRVS5WmC AdDteVEyHCVzV8djcdNmTuxA9DAzOZCHWhr/qGSQ1nxX+LqfQQ/6CJAyVQe287Vg9QbGkpbXCjOo qDhKGkPKkgmkEjyu7Qz89LO9o4A80tL4xx6nzEdC/Q/6OBBZW9DcNidxgofwFGMgohBAsMNKWfEh eByts72fAOShlsb9QMSj9j7oQ0BOFay9y0JcFnipqAgiqhDMIidEWAHC5LEjQH6Ou5d+HtJRWIBA 76OlsQ2ILcv68ZtlBXvorgrpwAgHHCzYPyyMsmwnSy4XyoOE8+Nxl7zyE8MhqfBLd/U9IcCA5LTU 40DYd+OKgidXFWFB86qU51aX4iL91c81PX05kOcaKXsHghgQeiLztmRqhJyIuypx1VFiBjmXxuWC xYH/FUwfNIDkHr4LNE8uQiAVh0EkUFYVzaDwHwve+DrOt8i6Cz6XxFkRdyXj+bF88bdO/j6QE0ti CYSSACBL2FXhPxnCiTQwEMaDZlc0fpBRePli1gwEAklZXcFnQ4qKxok8zeUECWZRUl+F/7PowdwV TrDKNZqB+HZZtwuvuykYOjVSkq+9sxB+KVecBXZWRcHk4VcfHwSk+QQgJ+KlxKDfIaEkSHKL3RQd JT0XBo81+log9mZXHwEEYWvjQo+fc1qHV1QSJWchYYhikOLwE8+9A3mij3KjtjBFjl719v71HoGk FAUflA3PbgkoyoXDgDh+rv54eAby6M1kez/YsdfWe27KpqQEyAlHcjqw0fEfDRVlhcM3Dhv4f9Xi uF6lPK6pPx5TABnRR1lv2YugvQ0gDZocCEqqQg6GpSoYn0L4KomD8vg57hKfv6HyD2RMH+VRQBr0 AiAnav9dYR27HY/jUh0/R1/p7nQx5JE+yk1j4NM6X4pvAU4NBKXVjtudSAHAoOtUHJjHNb+hDwZi 2N8BxPzSt9ZZvFHhtquaqYGgVFieDYBCwKATu5gGlkeRnNB/AQRZg/orFIJOaYVtjo0PqFxbGNJX 4dPOtzzeB8RotN+oTfeR/XghQ4A83Uj5xr49Yh8icuDztVxP0Dxg0iwLIWOFFYjWJLkxWynrR5nr EIhoScoWtQUbPqPF361k3x+xwhDyuFbr0wQqfdfUiWFRfy5onEKOvF8pBIKJVJzIkZ8hChI7rvk0 OP4akEXbkhQskiak4xopn5KqgpKAg4gjnQrHH5vtFb/SAt15F0IH0vLHBYRwX/AzUn8WneCSUPVS TB3H4y6fjsafA3KUMYQtitjBu12T9smc2pFvc7aJDdaFoZLrtcjXt9Okr+FPKkT0fOeeCvEVUhOO oGJ0ciATWyLjIp+MJOvT5K/hb31ApceQI2hEdB/dSDk4nUjDH/K9hmS9Pp1e0lts/sTQqZD3jBnI ZwKZO1vPCpkVMgOZgcxAZiAzkP8GSFDXh8NheViSsd0GM5A3AgnqJWaxrOttveVjea63wQzkLUAw DcyiHYRHQCnV2xnIy4FgR6XgaLHQA7ltZyAvBbI9HLCfgmNZ4xhC/jAmXFRut9uPAKK3k2NX9B7w artYpckcvDS7usubTdvuvQ9IsIw0FpREO7BQsOfyGEw8ADE6wYOO8GrzRQcQ0E0RaR/BTt3uvQdI HS0ZB/q31Imcl+czgbKtz+dPBKIDcF43gMBV5mfibwPCeMg/dRAafBAP5iu8P343ZvtRV+PxHiBO y76gu3gnkPNBomBho7bREEwOfg5yPwNxAsHRXITv2qWN8/nABlmKzp8FRG08DjrJ2sLNYmF2f+8G Mkm7dzeQ4HA2IrjB40BOAsnh4OPYuE94PqVzL7J0glcyMAOIR4X4SbJUIPGh7mQhQeARkVOEL+Pz ZwHROsEbCgF0fLss3wo5H2xBfNkqQ0gjEjgiMuIY3EfzXiBg2ZplWfvBf2iWFUQHQxhL4KeANgAN MrKlCcTSStnd9/qZZM3qjHg5aBLrAuKhDvFApAWCowHFYGRTB9NTQRxRHGVbHYPRerSzLakHIEYn eKVSt7s3V6WOjINUTNvu3Q5kGSsOyhLBNV0IHOQ462fF6gj84kV9NPCNdF9A/uxcVnzQywyLNA4G DYIjjplEYPN3ZAPCYaEZSD+QZaTy4EmtoKHCiLMsJq6K0SBAlgCIDsB+fQbSCSSIXMogNKLDAUQM zIMSkTjwtbP0WEoYRw4ezXy4ih4g54M7gKvSICSyQ5TFclA8WgxBtt8YqUDe34z/LQ3ihwE5RxZh aDiIlyIYMgwEL2WRpJGFHAgyUyunA5vYZbUdEkc0iB+w24uAxHqlIUkcWnHENKUiUKhKhLciI4yR 7b1vO0LCS4AIg0Id9DeIbztcoqGN4icCsozOZ31ORKCIW2cVUW3gPyKPTOoD8wjPbWHYtC0RbMcQ eVGW9fOjm31Qg3gnkI5m8f6BBKYyBA0WNOgC10UUMxqZUEdGqq9aWLpRmrOAw001+i+U3wakq1d7 BxBn52X/QEgWJeqMtvaLeQyn0YKcM/rHgNANXB6YSBbAatxYtET0qYO60tF6eIP4jwCyjc0inNqa xIvDgYVvEtV56BARROIIw4MxgaX0gTdLkMnTXvNwFo81iH8HkHMseDCfRfSQqaE7piU5lQjZEktm zGGF27fN9vYAcbRtd/Zq/wQgQQxSKaYE4pYoHOabZD3OJkoMfYQZ+lAglsPwdPdqHwpkyqB+iBVP FUW80oh56G5VklEkkYzmggcQyIcAUY4q8TO0QTzSb67sNqBZvB8gMZwtzHjNxzTAg3jGydAwkmU6 jjB69km8slL3ZMnpgASZnKRq/RW94AkuDSh0eiQGNBwC+S+ATFrAB9uMz6IzIsxfxTyAM5nIAA5h tOOtn6n/vcnFbRaDiVvmlSKaTYEZ3UwnErZMsmAG4hlIFCvJbcZCN5u7ik1xEFcFFFKjGYhvhagj 49lUZIMhxCGJROhvA4HfdHzN5GIWK59t8M9kwVyVRRxAIKcvAwK+BN9vaEbjxUBYBsXsTXMphzIY DaoQENGX6OOBhKqJQxXM5ylkq9s9dtMIM0Ud2GGdvgtIiFQgxNxMLUheCAohVEj4Kio4RYqyzhFy RyVOcGR+frTzMiDql7QEg9b0CP7YR9IQ214FZMt9kYNFptGASN7++5ABHgd+09qIIfC72fo3G3Ug L1MIkYiwuCATgoABcagCWSL0VQqBdJQv/HI46kZVHi90WQgtRSKb8bMkIK+FoYEj/EVfBkTNsqDl tTBvAkGvEgkLAts4E9YXf1rQ0KMHCejbvwREuC+Hy3oxEBREcH5Ki9wmC/opob9ejO+pQ7TQrmZZ 4RuzLDZqfc4wtHPwWaF/bKX+0srDAQQFyzj77YYARn2agUwMBC+f6UzWACi/fk04Ty7agWDLnOPf AUjOnp/EDMQFhORbcfQb/3ZBif9+N6APcVlsnOmnIk4kv0v/T2L7Eht3JEqhtvXVM4qdQHgsiYlO fnUmUT3Fk5gOSDjsTW/v/fAxQIiJlvwDEogkO3/d8UMs/TUcs7tyTkuvP+A6pSXBS4Eg2jvuzL7B SMa53k7XlP+VQByzu8BRaXNY7UX4XiB8exBsg6lbl04ERJ3p7Z3d7QWC0AcAecl4qctyzu6Ctijt fEmo/QQ+nHoO5f8EokduS9MHJXgY014zEO9ArLO7YBNdyvSb81XvAnI63ZJNskk3SXL69mNQDZrd VbMs9eamrl4L5HRKNhjEjY11kpArXwzkW2p4B5DTOt2sbydl3NabiZDMQHqA3LA2bhgHkQYfN0qH eLD/G8g7KnXsqxLmpjZgJBsGZb25zUBeCuS2SdZYGAoNAYWC2qxPM5CXASHyIBHcNTAsfJPbDORF QEj0SDp4MCTrzfpvAmk+Dcia2LsTB0OS+CXyBiD2g6F/GpD1akXVsaLnjrFeew0kfg9w33nk+S4g ShsKyyXcc+DDPAfktNowHKtNr0iSNPlUII/ejPbDE03x4GUDbt+ANoWTEAFAAgwi5TgGIPHotSYA IjugIrWfWtN2xxFNcuQe0GW1AFQg9qVpgGAa6QrzGKIQPFJ/uZZ/IMKIoPcK0mlMCcRsxDy0g2wL JFmtJI4hTNLN5vSRQBpgRL0nFLwEMNo9Gz1QICeQLoEc206+xwXSFmz4zMN331oegwRCkXyBQtxA zDadjbJ7qxutTd4AhzVOIeSQ6/QMgVCBrIBKuge+Qb7x5bQ+DUhjdV16kHLDWKD7QvYvv4v3/l1t Wr5QGpsbCrmtVoDIkLBOPVvwzUBUOYgkq12hmx/evIsHN/FRLLK3Pl/Bz0cIYXHnZwAE4hgY1skt 1x8KBCRVCBkrrECQ1g1PXaG5L6MpnhI+RAyhi4tj2xb+SM4LEWDYol0hUCBDwwi93TdPnRgG9ZLG SoXcxeKdO6Y7X82W+T9HlpWqCnmxRP4UED2GyISLrUbgYArgqAuaQk6rBxRCgWx8vKJ5tldXSHpZ jUbCypXVyQbE8LBGe8y593snkBUGclG8Vm+edbnQ9Bj6LFuTWKRAaDqBBP/1gEBOmMZFVciqTyGX 8kKgrVLd6sjSKtnVMHZWiF0hN81juX3WapWXdMMqT/bspoCH83AucMUMpB8Itu3FxsQc+SZJLhTI Jb8UVEo3FYjiwYxpJlt8mYEYQPLVam/gUHlgl5ZTT7W5sMt8k+Y5ueVNrbxcQPSgPgPpAIJx7FcX C5IWSprTD68wiJwCyfOE6GUFonrnwUOM41jMWVYHkMv+clmZPoultquS8Eg2ueCSXxinVUpryARZ iVhmFpy0ZiAqkBMGwqKIDoWa/sLTKkYBE0kJC1aFrGCaBWVgm+mZgQwFsscKwUik36L/ixWpNbAo uCDyFf9YShbp9KaXXCkMG/jRDrJkWc0MZAgQIpE9kwh2XjtCpNzl+YV+7sG0wWIHnDZh7HJg9AY1 Wg1iFCbm4Vw8AxHd1wZvuIuBhm4Zv8dol4WB0CiC/VZxLcoS1xt5gWWDw/aGxoyVnC+RLHQgZjHe NMh2fJcpsyzYEG/Ihrs6kGvTM3uMD+pUIZQJQVIQFtgj5UVBp0eINFa0BlnJKSzBBAsrNeerDCDG XNZEhaHWorB/w/3utK9jy/g9HsqyiMsqriSWrPLrrihotGaui1KQHyPKCXoBZJ98zmyv0TSyd8Pd aV/XlvF7PACk3BONEPuT065IU1q456zyUxmo/grvt/5gIFnfBqcR76OB3D0CSSiQcrfDHParalfs qDbyzapjXEgWgPe7fQwQaGzF8M4NTiv2Xxm+xwNA1ntKhADBQil3RZnn+5VlfkuyIBsvdK/Cw5ez /AIxrzg3IMs7HF5RNz24xwNAcN5bEJ91vV4xE+KpZJFoqeApDZKU0Vzggl4JJBzKA5miQFYgRkzu BTJ2j8eAsCBSlfmKTqNcWDhhMyqXFWRDSkjirvZMIYk3INpP8sPngICrzg3WGmKEeScDgoPIjgDB lSBLf7nNWZkoT3R6hYhDykMLIc8q5OOA3EcDufsBctvvuUj2LFKveGWyYgXjBTARm/hAXoHw5gqh 6IYvFoWAQrl5KiC2ittl3fF7DAWCiELAoLONhMaKTqnsqTb2VDT7i/RWvjyWASQEYpAU+BZ+JfQN xJnEOq07fo8RQJLdDiKhSrnQnEuc9zyrUnD48VgmkNACBLZXskrkYSDW0qGzphi/x1ggOKzv9nvp iS7c7hflxLZCHDs/P6MyXBbv/AaBhKpC+mcVDSDZACDOWS7kAjJwj7FAUK4oRJqeBXkOgS+0RHZ+ BGIBgpxA4I26iAyqEk1nM8y+4/cYDYRIRI0jkoLUirKe3H53Qf6AgA49IWzFo7os7tLCYTMnGhDH zOP4qcKpJxdptc6jSGWBYrtCAZ6QV4X4n8vSVNEPZNjM1NRzWcJpaRLpHOTWvn6I+2Yg3RMhbvuO 32MUkNN+FBF84xx9GBBoeOsElrnBUefZ3/se9hgBBN12Q4kUGMdxV50+DoiZW/VvsJnX8UmHhz3G AKHFyG6oPI57fx1o+oGET5AZusFtXjQaiLmH7CKotBMEjU8tQDCR4xAkBMdx/9JODqMntj4MiDi+ l1hq0WTyvwUIqna7ay8RymPns/vMBECG8bCmTp3mHb8HnMkmiqBUeLvT9kBsYWYFQjRyrHZ7ZWqr AoXgFPpQpt+VTqGiFAzlUaBCpBz50Vm2D/wukCsQOzLah/ZgTzfTyIQASwg/e9B/15zsj8frrmrt L5Z2/KKqsF/L/faU2yJbqS5mtUJ9lgveVgFi5FR9G+6jP5C9P/QRbhsiMgiEocjCdr2lxd+pIg6p wqMFIZbI2uqKeXhuvywVYgIBaMJ2ggspV5x1SO+GXvMaW8bvoQLhWhHhpF8hmEiORXK8VlVZlSX2 VwV3XGWZVinGcaySSXouhlaFKEtwChj1A+nfcB/9HZL7Q986kRHC4rIyoBNkbxN7IpGEIKnSNM3p iY6qwqurfKKupAOAhBYgoRPIgA0dNhz9tSzHHooAwtZZZYMVQie2qEqOVwKl4jCuV+LK0ilaKdtc FgjZoRnC2+7fLiBO6XTMz94HTN2O3UMGCnGsSn6EZ00bWTcQUrenRCbKqKbqNe5/Lmvohu6Zp95P QwbsIXwRy29lSaKLJ+wFQrq/r9MdyXLJqNL1abIjKcw/R7BPndhvcFtPemSEGchIIK8YM5AZyMeO fwIMAJx85ddImlCTAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C9C41C.474EE150-- From jhendricksmwpd@af-ct.com Thu Apr 23 07:14:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E4F3A728C for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:14:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.834 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t2ji6vByIrs0 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bzq-79-181-26-99.red.bezeqint.net (bzq-79-181-26-99.red.bezeqint.net [79.181.26.99]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 11E1F3A6928 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:14:25 -0700 (PDT) To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: RE: Q&A Doctor Noe From: v6ops-archive@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090423141426.11E1F3A6928@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 84406 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From leenjim@deloitte.com Thu Apr 23 10:31:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0F03A6E02; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:31:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -25.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-25.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0B7Eqadtqlh5; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host29-63-dynamic.180-80-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (host29-63-dynamic.180-80-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [80.180.63.29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DEA9E3A6DBC; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:31:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ann Ali" To: <"rsvp-archive@lists.ietf.org, spirits-archive@lists.ietf.org, v6ops-archive"@lists.ietf.org> Subject: Bvlgari reps better than originals Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:32:56 -0500 Message-ID: <0071zin783011ZCGXrsvp-archive@lists.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://www.birowigit.cn How does 90 percent off sound? Great, of course! And greatness is what awaits you at Diam0nd Reps, the preferred online store where you will find the finest watch imitations for exactly that: 90% off! http://www.birowigit.cn Check out our extensive inventory and enjoy the fastest shipping available online! See you at Diam0nd Reps! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 23 16:37:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A193A6A8E for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:37:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.860, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ymAwCkbYgG4q for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAF73A69B2 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lx8QS-000FA7-OG for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:33:52 +0000 Received: from [209.85.200.173] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lx8QG-000F9T-H5 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:33:46 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so692848wff.32 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:33:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qa9r9fcwexAVvLrcANhmw3k1UjfxRDUUAT3iP3+MZyA=; b=PzcHzkuQaIY527k7jczlDnwJ4SBTpDEhYEqs6r370gV31/Aejh2AZAzI6zcR7rwD+X hIt6pV4A6OsQvWXuf3rt5PESYdYQPCAMbxsMsQ/O5VezWRCjGx9NHn5weJX5Lr0hNZRJ I0W6iEqZgY4JY7jyHnlZDvx4oyqWBxMlC/1p8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=nNZrst/ZIKJ7SxpKhKALvlqPe7LLy0qPIA+EQYeKQCerhM017MTlnSoA2c58aLM/rB O2puXmbdaZzQoaMoMb+uBWrRZlNuCt3uW+9VJSdCVB1wDhWjiPOx+PKS1qUuCzzIXqXz Hl9Vlj9CGGtBEjug/luvDD+x4CJjLpBOC6p/E= Received: by 10.142.54.17 with SMTP id c17mr498055wfa.43.1240529620127; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm174749wff.39.2009.04.23.16.33.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:36 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ole Troan CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Ole, On 2009-04-24 01:02, Ole Troan wrote: >> But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, the >> RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels over >> GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations. This was explicitly _removed_ >> because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general purpose >> BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism. >> >> [1] take a look at e.g: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00 > > I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents? > obviously my memory isn't serving me right. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel-04.txt (thankyou Google) I don't recall why that never became an RFC. > you can still do BGP tunnelling with existing mechanisms. PEs are > connected through a full mesh of BGP peerings. each PE has an > automatic tunnelling interface (6to4, automatic tunnelling). BGP > next-hops are the 6to4/v4compatible address. note that 6to4 is only > used internally and the sites connecting to the PE uses native > addresses. Is there a full specification of this? Maybe the above draft needs to be revived? Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 01:52:29 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB863A6D4E for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jKWUd8fl1Rgp for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE223A6D3F for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxH8t-000Gk0-Ll for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:52:19 +0000 Received: from [144.254.224.140] (helo=ams-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxH8g-000GhX-5W for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:52:12 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,240,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="39060106" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2009 08:52:03 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3O8q39k026571; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:52:03 +0200 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3O8q3AI004684; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:52:03 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-335.cisco.com ([144.254.231.80]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:52:02 +0200 Received: from [144.254.53.106] ([144.254.53.106]) by xmb-ams-335.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:52:02 +0200 Message-ID: <49F17DB4.60909@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:52:04 +0200 From: Eric Levy-Abegnoli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: Ole Troan , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2009 08:52:02.0229 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF769650:01C9C4B9] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1598; t=1240563123; x=1241427123; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=elevyabe@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eric=20Levy-Abegnoli=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Ideas=20for=20IPv6=20BGP=20and=20tunnel ling |Sender:=20; bh=yJavu/cEvyrG6bK7bBiqRtpdZSzB4G28Sh0bJbQ/ceg=; b=uBZqa3IZRm+ecVLj9lPvRwqNOBQUm76Zte2d8FKku1yHdhP1e7Lny68bch +sqZtO5g0hEP8YBLSFjUVyRGmqECsbz4ibwaTkJ2d9r2PFBgtmczHzmR+i0W srp1J8maSj; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=elevyabe@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Brian, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > Ole, > > On 2009-04-24 01:02, Ole Troan wrote: > >>> But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, the >>> RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels over >>> GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations. This was explicitly _removed_ >>> because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general purpose >>> BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism. >>> >>> [1] take a look at e.g: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00 >>> >> I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents? >> obviously my memory isn't serving me right. >> > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel-04.txt > (thankyou Google) > > I don't recall why that never became an RFC. > That sort of became RFC4798, with focus on MPLS tunnelling > >> you can still do BGP tunnelling with existing mechanisms. PEs are >> connected through a full mesh of BGP peerings. each PE has an >> automatic tunnelling interface (6to4, automatic tunnelling). BGP >> next-hops are the 6to4/v4compatible address. note that 6to4 is only >> used internally and the sites connecting to the PE uses native >> addresses. >> > > Is there a full specification of this? Maybe the above draft > needs to be revived? > Any tunnelling of v6 over v4 would do, and each mechanism has its own spec. They just "work" regardless of the v6 content (for instance BGP v6). So I don't think we need to specify it further. Eric > Brian > > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 01:52:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EF93A6C7F for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bsc6KsFkxy57 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFC83A6A6D for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxH4v-000G7S-Sw for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:48:13 +0000 Received: from [2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe97:2bc2] (helo=c.painless.aaisp.net.uk) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxH4W-000G2W-8A for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:48:01 +0000 Received: from tactless.ec.aaisp.net.uk ([2001:8b0:0:2:21d:60ff:fedd:9e63]) by c.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LxH4R-0001rJ-M7; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:47:43 +0100 Message-ID: <49F17CAF.9090502@aaisp.net.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:47:43 +0100 From: Adrian Kennard User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ole Troan CC: Pekka Savola , Mohacsi Janos , v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Kennard family X-Info: Organization Header added by smtp.aaisp.net.uk based on Authenticated ID Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Ole Troan wrote: >> But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, the >> RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels over >> GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations. This was explicitly _removed_ >> because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general purpose >> BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism. >> >> [1] take a look at e.g: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00 > > I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents? > obviously my memory isn't serving me right. > > you can still do BGP tunnelling with existing mechanisms. PEs are > connected through a full mesh of BGP peerings. each PE has an > automatic tunnelling interface (6to4, automatic tunnelling). BGP > next-hops are the 6to4/v4compatible address. note that 6to4 is only > used internally and the sites connecting to the PE uses native > addresses. OK, it is specifically the use of the next hop that I wanted to check. If that is covered by an existing RFC then great. The idea is the use of a suitable IPv6 next hop for an IPv6 prefix announced via an IPv4 BGP session. Is the correct practice to use a 2002:: prefix address as the IPv6 next hop to make the routing send via a protocol 41 IPv4 tunnel then? Is that documented? There is another more radical idea I also have which maybe I'll raise as a separate issue though :-) From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 04:02:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E71E3A6AA2 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:02:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88MN3itbHiGR for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274083A67F1 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxJ92-0004h7-EH for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:00:36 +0000 Received: from [2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe97:2bc2] (helo=c.painless.aaisp.net.uk) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxJ8n-0004fQ-O6 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:00:28 +0000 Received: from tactless.ec.aaisp.net.uk ([2001:8b0:0:2:21d:60ff:fedd:9e63]) by c.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpsa (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LxJ8k-0001s6-EE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:00:18 +0100 Message-ID: <49F19BC2.8050705@aaisp.net.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:00:18 +0100 From: Adrian Kennard User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Kennard family X-Info: Organization Header added by smtp.aaisp.net.uk based on Authenticated ID Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Ole, > > On 2009-04-24 01:02, Ole Troan wrote: >>> But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, the >>> RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels over >>> GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations. This was explicitly _removed_ >>> because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general purpose >>> BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism. >>> >>> [1] take a look at e.g: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00 >> I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents? >> obviously my memory isn't serving me right. > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel-04.txt > (thankyou Google) > > I don't recall why that never became an RFC. That is exactly what I am talking about. It uses "The IPv4-mapped IPv6 address is defined in [V6ADDR]" as the next hop. That means ::FFFF:x.x.x.x as an IPv4 address. What is not clear to me is what this the best practice and workable IPv6 next hop to specify. Seems to me it could be:- ::x.x.x.x ::FFFF:x.x.x.x 2002:xxxx:xxxx:: The latter seems to express that we want to use simple protocol 41 IPv6 over IPv4 tunnelling. The first two seem to me to just indicate an IPv4 address as the next hop without saying how the traffic is to be sent to it (e.g. GRE, protocol 41, whatever). Do we need an RFC on this? FYI, I'll make our routers understand any of the above as a next hop to send over protocol 41 when received, but need to know what I should used when generating this as a next hop to send. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 04:47:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A1B3A6AB7 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:47:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.845, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Of0D8Gu1EYP3 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB6C3A6A05 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxJs3-000Avp-QU for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:47:07 +0000 Received: from [192.100.122.230] (helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxJrq-000Atp-L9 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:47:00 +0000 Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n3OBkM7A000794; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:46:41 +0300 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:46:15 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:46:10 +0300 Received: from nok-am1mhub-07.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.14) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:46:09 +0200 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-07.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.14]) with mapi; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:46:09 +0200 From: To: , CC: , , , Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:45:30 +0200 Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Thread-Index: Acm94LDbhPGzIm4HRiWyaNi4/b1q9wG67Osg Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2009 11:46:10.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[43314B10:01C9C4D2] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, I believe this document is of operational utility.=20 Few comments/questions: - 3.2.2. describes, as per RFC4787, that UDP mappings MUST NOT expire in le= ss than two minutes. As I don't know the backgrounds of this decision, I wo= nder why the minimum time could not be longer for IPv6? The longer the time= the less need to activate radio for keep-alive sending (on either side of = the firewall btw - consider a case where CPE has wireless WAN). In CGN case= short timeout is understandable due need to save public ports, but that pr= obably is not an issue in simple IPv6 firewall. So why e.g. not two hours a= s for TCP? - 3.2.5. Just to check that DSMIP6 is considered as one of these other tunn= eling protocols mentioned in R22? How about MIP6 route optimization, will t= hat work through a device implementing this specification? - 3.4 says it remains to be seen if UPnP:IGD is to be extended for IPv6. I = would rather say that IPv6 is being added to UPnP:IDG2. See: "http://www.up= np.org/resources/documents/UPnPIGD2vsIGD1d10032009.pdf "UPnP Gateway commi= ttee: IGD:2 improvements over IGD:1" Best regards, Teemu >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org=20 >[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Fred Baker >Sent: 15 April, 2009 18:27 >To: IPv6 Operations >Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net >Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC > >This is to initiate a two week working group last call of=20 >draft-ietf- v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04. Please read it now.=20 >If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording=20 >changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater=20 >issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding=20 >additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your=20 >comments to the list. > >We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of=20 >the document as well as its content. If you have read the=20 >document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is=20 >also an important comment to make. > >= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 05:12:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747723A6E64 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:12:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.634 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1qLVdfrOwuWf for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D143A6A05 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxKEW-000ESv-S8 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:10:20 +0000 Received: from [2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4] (helo=abaddon.unfix.org) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxKEJ-000EQr-9P for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:10:13 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63A44401FE4; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:10:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49F1AC12.7050408@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:09:54 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Kennard CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> <49F19BC2.8050705@aaisp.net.uk> In-Reply-To: <49F19BC2.8050705@aaisp.net.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigC396ABF2FAFC9325DB2BD341" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigC396ABF2FAFC9325DB2BD341 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adrian Kennard wrote: [..] > What is not clear to me is what this the best practice and workable IPv= 6 > next hop to specify. Seems to me it could be:- >=20 > ::x.x.x.x That one was deprecated by RFC4291. I used to use ::/96 for storing IPv4 addresses inside IPv6, but then you don't know if :: is 0.0.0.0 or IPv6 ::, as such I am now using the ::ffff::/96 in the places where I was using that and the code that I have updated. Then ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 is for sure the IPv4 variant. > ::FFFF:x.x.x.x > 2002:xxxx:xxxx:: >=20 > The latter seems to express that we want to use simple protocol 41 IPv6= > over IPv4 tunnelling. The first two seem to me to just indicate an IPv4= > address as the next hop without saying how the traffic is to be sent to= > it (e.g. GRE, protocol 41, whatever). I would go for ::ffff:x.x.x.x, as then you have the properties you describe above, but also know for sure that the 2002::/16 prefix can't be hijacked by some routing entry, next to it being clear that this is really on the wire as IPv4 and not as IPv6. > FYI, I'll make our routers understand any of the above as a next hop to= > send over protocol 41 when received, but need to know what I should use= d > when generating this as a next hop to send. I do sincerely hope that you will be looking heavily at the security concerns here, especially a line saying "only accept packets from known prefixes" and "filter those prefixes out at the border" aka BCP38. Greets, Jeroen --------------enigC396ABF2FAFC9325DB2BD341 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJ8awdKaooUjM+fCMRAqpoAKCS0kKQgOUyzHahtu/latSnk5zLZgCgoCvf uTjfu4g8xH+IoCclcZs/7f8= =Nc8f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC396ABF2FAFC9325DB2BD341-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 05:22:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5203A6B17 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:22:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sX51vxhiufeO for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EBD28C1A0 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxKOx-000Fil-3J for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:21:07 +0000 Received: from [209.85.220.169] (helo=mail-fx0-f169.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxKOj-000FhP-Dy for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:21:00 +0000 Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17so815174fxm.41 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:20:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fOgSavHsAzzzY9qYnNtScaQ3jkxvoo15fD30uK78+RU=; b=cfJZKUOmjQrD8rQRQ7gQdcDErBWKut5hXFe2vN84SYsXPIRijQ78OHJ7Fn98ilpslW jv5lONbCgsHQck6f/lVD1Y53WOIk+fu0ZSw5qPNdqnb8xqf6R/M9gDkvIM2Pqmqn6cUc wEMhPXj72FxRvV2usbxS8/7Lghyca6cW6zlFw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=BDHWbeNjuYov2/l+rKKBpLZ2QyHF2uq4tO/sZ6uY+mPuP87XDXG0VV7V5uu8m1LCQH RiVrOzzW4cigeMcmO7d7S0oBvFrQf/d2och4RHUh74dyl6tzEysIYHFbdZk9doL7cftj Rb4VqTqLpbgzX3Tbboq5PaVSQAv0HvqwqEJnc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.124.7 with SMTP id s7mr1991787bkr.189.1240575652051; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:20:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49F19BC2.8050705@aaisp.net.uk> References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> <49F19BC2.8050705@aaisp.net.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:20:51 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: f1c71a7332d9e7cc Message-ID: <2bbba3c10904240520gac992b1oaf29c7d835d382d6@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling From: Ole Troan To: Adrian Kennard Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Adrian, [...] >> I don't recall why that never became an RFC. > > That is exactly what I am talking about. > > It uses "The IPv4-mapped IPv6 address is defined in [V6ADDR]" as the > next hop. That means ::FFFF:x.x.x.x as an IPv4 address. > > What is not clear to me is what this the best practice and workable IPv6 > next hop to specify. Seems to me it could be:- > > ::x.x.x.x > ::FFFF:x.x.x.x > 2002:xxxx:xxxx:: > > The latter seems to express that we want to use simple protocol 41 IPv6 > over IPv4 tunnelling. The first two seem to me to just indicate an IPv4 > address as the next hop without saying how the traffic is to be sent to > it (e.g. GRE, protocol 41, whatever). > > Do we need an RFC on this? > > FYI, I'll make our routers understand any of the above as a next hop to > send over protocol 41 when received, but need to know what I should used > when generating this as a next hop to send. I believe you have to pick either ::x.x.x.x if you want to use IPv4 compatible automatic tunnelling or 2002:x.x.x.x:: for 6to4. the first mechanism has been deprecated for a number of years, so I'd recommend 6to4. but it is basically an operational choice. using a 6to4 address also implies how traffic is sent. cheers, Ole From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 07:43:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385233A6B0A for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:43:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.519, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id miCWTSFgw73v for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4920A3A67F7 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxMZr-00086Q-Qu for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:40:31 +0000 Received: from [212.27.42.2] (helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxMZY-000821-GK for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:40:25 +0000 Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FBF4B015E; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:40:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from RD-Mac.local (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B564B0072; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:40:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49F1CF44.9000808@free.fr> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:40:04 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Woodyatt CC: v6ops Subject: Distinguishing minimum- from simple- security in IPv6 CPEs ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: James, After reading draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-05, I believe there should be room for a lower security level than the one described. As explained below, it would be sufficient in many unmanaged sites, and it could be deployed more rapidly so that IPv6 user experience can bettered quickly. A PROPOSAL is then to describe it in the draft, calling it for example "minimal" to distinguish it from "simple". RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL The IPv6 I use everyday from my home office is via a CPE that has no IPv6 security mechanism. I am not worried about it because the internal firewall of my Mac is active, but I found the following problem: - When I wished to open the Mac to incoming VNC connections for an intra-site usage, I had to first deactivate IPv6 in the Mac to avoid opening it also for intrusions from the outside Internet. There is no such problem in IPv4 because the CPE has its NAT44s which accepts incoming TCP connections only if their destination ports: - have been explicitly authorized (by configuration or some port assignment protocol) - OR have been opened by some outgoing connections (with interior ports that are in this case ephemeral ports, i.e. beyond 49151). SPECIFICATION The IPv6 "minimal" security protection which IMHO should be sufficient in many unmanaged CPEs like mine is as follows: 1. Incoming IPv6 TCP connections MUST be rejected if targeting ports are below 49152 AND have not been explicitly authorized in IPv4. 2. All other packets MUST be forwarded if their source addresses are unicast and compatible with the CPE side they come from. (Packets MAY be discarded if their source addresses belong to the other CPE side, or are multicast.) That's it. Rule 2 is to ensure that, in this mode, no permanent or intermittent connectivity breaches are possible, and to consequently facilitate debugging by avoiding issues like timer values, endpoint independent vs address dependent filtering etc. To implement rule 1, CPEs only need to silently discard incoming IPv6 TCP SYNs that are both without ACK and with destination ports not authorized in IPv4. Upgrades for this should typically be feasible by vendors without needing major releases. In CPEs that support the currently described "simple" security level in addition to this "minimal" security level, the choice of which one is by default can IMHO remain a vendor choice. Regards, RD From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 11:04:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC483A73B0 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.274 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.379, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B92ogoNQc7qP for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C39E28C1FC for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxPhv-0007k7-IV for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:01:03 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxPhf-0007ie-Cz for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:00:55 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,243,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="156542148" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2009 18:00:46 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3OI0kMf026196; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:00:46 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3OI0koQ017038; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:00:46 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: , , Cc: , , , References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:00:46 -0700 Message-ID: <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Thread-Index: Acm94LDbhPGzIm4HRiWyaNi4/b1q9wG67OsgAA5ZdaA= In-reply-to: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2942; t=1240596046; x=1241460046; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 =20WGLC |Sender:=20; bh=/4yogpX2MmXdV4qoiKDSmn3IzZeRRjNfJNHRUqD71YA=; b=rU/L60nEpoEXLq35vK7hbU3KWY2t72KM0Amf08XIhOa9UJOoD9qw2ebOxw OuYDYMV1svHJ84ZQ9Mg9lfsOIa5ZopDi+oqA7vhuCRah2v8uuTCqfaIDOAE4 bMKkPOUxbq; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of > teemu.savolainen@nokia.com > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:46 AM > To: fred@cisco.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net; > Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; jouni.korhonen@nsn.com > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC > > Hi, > > I believe this document is of operational utility. > > Few comments/questions: > - 3.2.2. describes, as per RFC4787, that UDP mappings MUST > NOT expire in less than two minutes. As I don't know the > backgrounds of this decision, It is probably from REQ-5 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4787#section-4.3. > I wonder why the minimum time > could not be longer for IPv6? The longer the time the less > need to activate radio for keep-alive sending (on either side > of the firewall btw - consider a case where CPE has wireless > WAN). In CGN case short timeout is understandable due need to > save public ports, but that probably is not an issue in > simple IPv6 firewall. So why e.g. not two hours as for TCP? Two hours seems a long time to leave your door open. A longer timeout could be negotiated between the the host and its CPE router using whatever protocol exists and becomes a defacto standard on IPv6 networks (e.g., draft-woodyatt-ald, UPnP IGD version 2). -d > - 3.2.5. Just to check that DSMIP6 is considered as one of > these other tunneling protocols mentioned in R22? How about > MIP6 route optimization, will that work through a device > implementing this specification? > - 3.4 says it remains to be seen if UPnP:IGD is to be > extended for IPv6. I would rather say that IPv6 is being > added to UPnP:IDG2. See: > "http://www.upnp.org/resources/documents/UPnPIGD2vsIGD1d100320 > 09.pdf "UPnP Gateway committee: IGD:2 improvements over IGD:1" > > Best regards, > > Teemu > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > >[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Fred Baker > >Sent: 15 April, 2009 18:27 > >To: IPv6 Operations > >Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net > >Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC > > > >This is to initiate a two week working group last call of > >draft-ietf- v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04. Please read it now. > >If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording > >changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater > >issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding > >additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your > >comments to the list. > > > >We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of > >the document as well as its content. If you have read the > >document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is > >also an important comment to make. > > > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 11:24:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852D63A6BAE for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t-DToSUA2QnU for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284823A6A24 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxQ4w-000AZF-Cv for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:24:50 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxQ4g-000AXz-Sc for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:24:42 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,243,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="292425449" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2009 18:24:34 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3OIOY6Z011000; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:24:34 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com [10.32.244.219]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3OIOXWX013991; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:24:34 GMT Cc: , , , , , Message-Id: <38E6CF9B-D53E-46E0-B422-4A0DB07F25FA@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: "Dan Wing" In-Reply-To: <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:24:31 -0700 References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4617; t=1240597474; x=1241461474; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 =20WGLC |Sender:=20; bh=CeZODKBQxPwmSp2HMe9TEx6f1ncdFOugOAI2L4ul/F4=; b=nCPgEq54uZxuuATKxuM1EQ33B2vWv4pLbQD/pSdVTDNoAutMWRa7YQu4ZY iKc8juhMO9YC3i2Au5smktMTDEyWqhMTK17Af2M71p+JWKOfMbR/nkX4nNWh yT2uUFOuO0EPBN/ClRd3T9TN8eHITXb+G7VjRZlezko+HV/hU8yMU=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: While the exact timing is open to opinions, I would suspect the original mention derives from a combination of two things. (1) When TCP was originally under development, in the 1970's, there was a sense that a datagram could float around for several minutes, which is why the TCP sequence space is as large as it is and why timers are what they are. (2) KC Claffy's dissertation, published in part in SIGCOMM 1993, found that TCP sessions could stop sending for several seconds and then restart, such as due to an application running off to a back-end database or launching a process. She defined a microflow as having ended when no datagram in the microflow had been seen for 300 seconds. I pushed her to try a number of intervals, including 1, 2, 4, 8 seconds, 15, 30, 60, and 300. She in fact tested something akin to that (in her perl scripts, it was a matter of changing a variable and re-running the test on the same data), and she found that 8 seconds was a big change - the same session could originate a new datagram as late as 300 seconds later, but the probability was that if a session had not spoken for 8 seconds it was unlikely to speak again. Today, iPhoto uploading to Picasa (I have observed) can stall a pipelined TCP session for 15 seconds, so the interval is probably longer - for safety I would talk about 30-60 seconds. Why two minutes? Probably safety, coupled with the fact that UDP has no counterpart to "RST" that can be interpreted to short-circuit a session being ended. On Apr 24, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Dan Wing wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> teemu.savolainen@nokia.com >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:46 AM >> To: fred@cisco.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org >> Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net; >> Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; jouni.korhonen@nsn.com >> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC >> >> Hi, >> >> I believe this document is of operational utility. >> >> Few comments/questions: >> - 3.2.2. describes, as per RFC4787, that UDP mappings MUST >> NOT expire in less than two minutes. As I don't know the >> backgrounds of this decision, > > It is probably from REQ-5 of > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4787#section-4.3. > >> I wonder why the minimum time >> could not be longer for IPv6? The longer the time the less >> need to activate radio for keep-alive sending (on either side >> of the firewall btw - consider a case where CPE has wireless >> WAN). In CGN case short timeout is understandable due need to >> save public ports, but that probably is not an issue in >> simple IPv6 firewall. So why e.g. not two hours as for TCP? > > Two hours seems a long time to leave your door open. > > A longer timeout could be negotiated between the the host and its > CPE router > using whatever protocol exists and becomes a defacto standard on > IPv6 networks > (e.g., draft-woodyatt-ald, UPnP IGD version 2). > > -d > >> - 3.2.5. Just to check that DSMIP6 is considered as one of >> these other tunneling protocols mentioned in R22? How about >> MIP6 route optimization, will that work through a device >> implementing this specification? >> - 3.4 says it remains to be seen if UPnP:IGD is to be >> extended for IPv6. I would rather say that IPv6 is being >> added to UPnP:IDG2. See: >> "http://www.upnp.org/resources/documents/UPnPIGD2vsIGD1d100320 >> 09.pdf "UPnP Gateway committee: IGD:2 improvements over IGD:1" >> >> Best regards, >> >> Teemu >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Fred Baker >>> Sent: 15 April, 2009 18:27 >>> To: IPv6 Operations >>> Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net >>> Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC >>> >>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of >>> draft-ietf- v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04. Please read it now. >>> If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording >>> changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater >>> issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding >>> additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your >>> comments to the list. >>> >>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of >>> the document as well as its content. If you have read the >>> document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is >>> also an important comment to make. >>> >>> > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 11:52:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722873A6999 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:52:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.770, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WARQ5WBYjbrW for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D243A6E0E for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxQVP-000EDY-Pc for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:52:11 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxQVD-000EBz-UE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:52:05 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621AA5E69E6B; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 3933C2809D; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-a66f0bb000000259-12-49f20a4f29c2 Received: from il0602f-dhcp171.apple.com (il0602f-dhcp171.apple.com [17.206.50.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 1C7E12809F; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Dan Wing Message-Id: <159D69A1-72DD-43CC-8168-9149EE81AB6A@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:51:58 -0700 References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Apr 24, 2009, at 11:00, Dan Wing wrote: > > Two hours seems a long time to leave your door open. > > A longer timeout could be negotiated between the the host and its > CPE router > using whatever protocol exists and becomes a defacto standard on > IPv6 networks > (e.g., draft-woodyatt-ald, UPnP IGD version 2). Alternatively, the "simple" security functions could be disabled to facilitate applications that can't afford to send keep-alive packets. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 12:11:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA6E3A6F95 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:11:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.475 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.980, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zZcxktJMm+fX for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:11:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABADE3A68B0 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:11:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxQn2-000GtA-12 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:10:24 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxQmi-000GoE-RK for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:10:15 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,243,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="158712662" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2009 19:10:04 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3OJA4AB030694; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:10:04 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3OJA4n5008905; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:10:04 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'james woodyatt'" , "'IPv6 Operations'" References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <159D69A1-72DD-43CC-8168-9149EE81AB6A@apple.com> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:10:04 -0700 Message-ID: <020001c9c510$46333740$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Thread-Index: AcnFDb/OP9fZaSeiS/aCzKbEK5ETxwAAmdTw In-reply-to: <159D69A1-72DD-43CC-8168-9149EE81AB6A@apple.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=569; t=1240600204; x=1241464204; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 =20WGLC |Sender:=20; bh=ip9YotuAzDqUqiuv86UH5iice7BtJRbOU+AOL0+KsDw=; b=I80KX35Qnrba9NVarzbDEBEyqkJzpnqgfcVMiy1aw4sXM1F9aLJXhqHFfr DDU3LHR36eRy+L8f5xJ9RG9m3IrzxaM10p7NChI8KXMFM5HDdl2T9SsOw/8Z br+IpHMZGc; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > > Two hours seems a long time to leave your door open. > > > > A longer timeout could be negotiated between the the host and its > > CPE router > > using whatever protocol exists and becomes a defacto standard on > > IPv6 networks > > (e.g., draft-woodyatt-ald, UPnP IGD version 2). > > Alternatively, the "simple" security functions could be disabled to > facilitate applications that can't afford to send keep-alive packets. Sure, but that causes them to wake up their radio whenever a packet is received. I don't know which is worse. -d From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 24 13:45:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912F528C254 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.456 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.961, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fxl8zI0CVNWO for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17473A6DFD for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxSEk-00029D-GY for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:43:06 +0000 Received: from [209.85.200.171] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxSEO-00027a-0d for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:42:59 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so1077898wff.32 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O8RD6prNXhvbRaE0GJKb0qPCkC1jAzOaMuJrNo2sW1k=; b=K1BfUPjuPkKJBkq10P15+O2hfxdzTOLU/GpIojXwBjF9qvKaChGkI/e49AWL0Ob3Fd raTvM2ThPGICluucenEkWKY+rJRIItSbJpUxe0ol3MPVdoq3QBcfLW2pShn4MHf/ATOf xwe47vNPyHTBwL0wh7CsGrC0pBM8eK29YFt8Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=dvcUNUy8IALh8napDd2WG2WMU0nz72vQRv83OGsBJEsJmCvQK2/tUTOmED8TT3uSMx m1KoYz7y1yA7jjDtSRAEqnshM11s0XazMIn8awoF3MC5bBshFAijwKxE6PnfwPMWmvdr p6zum5RaID+/RhjyUmXEYTu7as1bMkdusBNCI= Received: by 10.142.246.20 with SMTP id t20mr939461wfh.233.1240605763251; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.1.1.5? (118-92-157-104.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.92.157.104]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 27sm3012276wfa.2.2009.04.24.13.42.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49F22434.3080300@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:42:28 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Levy-Abegnoli CC: Ole Troan , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> <49F17DB4.60909@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <49F17DB4.60909@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-04-24 20:52, Eric Levy-Abegnoli wrote: > Brian, > Brian E Carpenter a =C3=A9crit : >> Ole, >> >> On 2009-04-24 01:02, Ole Troan wrote: >> =20 >>>> But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In >>>> fact, the >>>> RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels= >>>> over >>>> GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations. This was explicitly _remov= ed_ >>>> because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general= >>>> purpose >>>> BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism. >>>> >>>> [1] take a look at e.g: >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00 >>>> =20 >>> I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents? >>> obviously my memory isn't serving me right. >>> =20 >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel-04.txt >> (thankyou Google) >> >> I don't recall why that never became an RFC. >> =20 > That sort of became RFC4798, with focus on MPLS tunnelling Exactly; the non-MPLS methods were thrown away, although they seem to be completely valid. Why isn't there an informational or BCP RFC describing them? It really seems like a gap. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 25 01:31:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10013A6A39 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:31:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.302, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gvjuqsYCsPF for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F663A6A9A for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxdDf-000PYW-Hf for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:26:43 +0000 Received: from [76.162.254.37] (helo=mail37.opentransfer.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LxdDT-000PX8-7K for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:26:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 7153 invoked by uid 399); 25 Apr 2009 08:26:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.53?) (83.24.15.30) by mail37.opentransfer.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2009 08:26:29 -0000 Message-ID: <49F2C930.5050205@raszuk.net> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:26:24 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: Eric Levy-Abegnoli , Ole Troan , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com> <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com> <49F17DB4.60909@cisco.com> <49F22434.3080300@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49F22434.3080300@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Brian, >> That sort of became RFC4798, with focus on MPLS tunnelling > > Exactly; the non-MPLS methods were thrown away, although they > seem to be completely valid. Why isn't there an informational > or BCP RFC describing them? I am not sure if they were thrown away. RFC4798 cames from L3VPN paradigm and is sort of additional plug in for interconnect IPv6 islands over IPv4 core. And since it is very much based on 2547/4364 any transport which applies to this would also apply to 4798. For example draft-ietf-l3vpn-gre-ip-2547-05 defines IP tunneling support. Of course some vendors support automated multipoint GRE technic where your encapsulation header is automatically learned from BGP next hops allowing for very easy IP tunneling. For those vendors the very same functionality could be used for RFC4798. > It really seems like a gap. I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately for some people dreaming about world of MPLS only core routers which are not able to route/switch even single IP packet this would be not a gap but a great feature :). Cheers, R. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 27 02:34:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D483A6983 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:34:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.855, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3=1.63] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ivzjIWoP-TkN for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286D73A6AAD for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LyN9E-000N4b-Gx for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:29:12 +0000 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LyN8y-000N38-Uh for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:29:06 +0000 Received: from [10.1.3.180] (wlap003.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.45]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n3R9RYFg014218 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:27:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: <92C2C957-ED8F-47F9-B0D5-28B58A1E29A4@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Feedback requested:FTP ALG for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:27:18 +0200 References: <20090427084757.ED90228C0D0@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi all, In the BEHAVE wg we're working on IPv6-to-IPv4 translation. One prominent protocol that has trouble with this is FTP, so we're thinking of making an FTP ALG part of this. I wrote a draft on how to do this, and I would very much like some feedback. The draft is only 6 pages. One thing that would be good to know is whether ALL IPv6 FTP clients do EPSV or if there are also ones that do EPRT or, worse, active FTP without issuing EPRT. Thanks, Iljitsch van Beijnum Begin forwarded message: > Filename: draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64 > Revision: 01 > Title: An FTP Application Layer Gateway for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation > Creation_date: 2009-04-27 > WG ID: Independent Submission > Number_of_pages: 6 > Abstract: > The only FTP mode that works without changes through an IPv6-to-IPv4 > translator is extended passive, introduced in 1998. However, many > existing FTP servers don't support this mode, making it impossible to > support the File Transfer Protocol through an IPv6-to-IPv4 translator > without an Application Layer Gateway. This document describes the > behavior of such an ALG. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-01.txt From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 27 04:34:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCA43A6A99 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:34:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.862, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3=1.63, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tHI6w-udsXgM for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62E73A696A for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LyP4L-0006RZ-8e for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:32:17 +0000 Received: from [2001:41d0:1:a0d6::401:1983] (helo=yop.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LyP3z-0006Os-TX for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:32:09 +0000 Received: by yop.chewa.net (Postfix, from userid 33) id 2659541B; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:31:54 +0200 (CEST) To: Iljitsch van Beijnum Subject: Re: Feedback requested:FTP ALG for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:31:54 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Cc: IPv6 Operations Organization: Remlab.net In-Reply-To: <92C2C957-ED8F-47F9-B0D5-28B58A1E29A4@muada.com> References: <20090427084757.ED90228C0D0@core3.amsl.com> <92C2C957-ED8F-47F9-B0D5-28B58A1E29A4@muada.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: remi@remlab.net User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:27:18 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > In the BEHAVE wg we're working on IPv6-to-IPv4 translation. One > prominent protocol that has trouble with this is FTP, so we're > thinking of making an FTP ALG part of this. I wrote a draft on how to > do this, and I would very much like some feedback. The draft is only 6 > pages. This does not say how "EPSV ALL" is translated... You cannot let EPSV ALL go through if you translate later EPSV requests, as it would break EPSV-capable FTP IPv4 servers. As such, I guess the ALG should accept the request and not forward it to the FTP server. | If the server's 227 response contains an IPv4 address that doesn't | match the destination of the control channel, the FTP ALG SHOULD send | the following response to the client: | | 425 Can't open data connection. How common is this case? Shouldn't the ALG succeed, as it can do IPv4 address translation anyway? > One thing that would be good to know is whether ALL IPv6 FTP clients > do EPSV or if there are also ones that do EPRT or, worse, active FTP > without issuing EPRT. Not that I know. However, as the author of one popular piece of software that does include FTP functionality, I would like to mention that some users explicitly requested active mode be added. Their rationale was that it's better/easier for their client-side firewall to allow inbound traffic from TCP port 20 (ftp-data) than to allow outbound traffic to all TCP ports. This makes some sense when the FTP clients have public IP addresses, which should be more common in IPv6 than in IPv4. As such, I would guess at least some (other) software does have active mode, though it's probably disabled by default. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 27 06:11:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F083A6F71 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:11:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3=1.63] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QDftytPKFuSd for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1C73A6F59 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LyQZ3-000F0g-VL for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:08:05 +0000 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LyQYe-000Eyg-K3 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:07:53 +0000 Received: from claw.it.uc3m.es (claw.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.66]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n3RD5ULN015590 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:05:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations , Behave WG Message-Id: <5AF9A8B0-0EB6-411F-AAA5-CEE49908E370@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Feedback requested:FTP ALG for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:06:21 +0200 References: <20090427084757.ED90228C0D0@core3.amsl.com> <92C2C957-ED8F-47F9-B0D5-28B58A1E29A4@muada.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: [CC to behave list, trim behave or v6ops as required] On 27 apr 2009, at 13:31, R=E9mi Denis-Courmont wrote: > This does not say how "EPSV ALL" is translated... You cannot let =20 > EPSV ALL > go through if you translate later EPSV requests, as it would break > EPSV-capable FTP IPv4 servers. As such, I guess the ALG should =20 > accept the > request and not forward it to the FTP server. Not sure if issuing EPSV ALL would actually cause trouble if then PASV =20= is issued, but just to be on the safe side and to avoid servers (or =20 middleboxes) reacting badly to EPSV in general it's probably best to =20 filter these out. Need to think about EPSV , too. > | If the server's 227 response contains an IPv4 address that doesn't > | match the destination of the control channel, the FTP ALG SHOULD =20= > send > | the following response to the client: > | 425 Can't open data connection. > How common is this case? Shouldn't the ALG succeed, as it can do IPv4 > address translation anyway? It should be rare, because in this case the server asks to connect to =20= a different host (or different address on the same host) to get the =20 data than the address we're talking to for the control channel. The problem is that the 229 response doesn't allow for an address. It =20= would be possible to put it in there anyway, but I have no idea what =20 the result of that would be. Alternatively, it would be possible to =20 create a mapping from pref64::10.0.0.1 port 1234 to 10.0.0.2 port 1234 =20= as a way to solve this, but that's very ugly and this way EPSV =20 translation can't happen on just the control channel anymore. >> One thing that would be good to know is whether ALL IPv6 FTP clients >> do EPSV or if there are also ones that do EPRT or, worse, active FTP >> without issuing EPRT. > Not that I know. However, as the author of one popular piece of =20 > software > that does include FTP functionality, I would like to mention that some > users explicitly requested active mode be added. Right. Active mode with EPRT would work if that part is also =20 implemented as described in the draft (EPRT is MAY, EPSV is SHOULD), =20 but: > Their rationale was that > it's better/easier for their client-side firewall to allow inbound =20 > traffic > from TCP port 20 (ftp-data) If port 20 is assumed and no EPSV or EPRT is issued, then there is no =20= obvious way to correlate the incoming session on the v4 side to the v6 =20= host, especially if multiple clients are talking to the same server at =20= the same time. I think this is too nasty to bother with.= From labianon@ambergrissolutions.com Mon Apr 27 11:03:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB4C3A6A32 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0xh0UnsL0b1i for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams.com.au (cust-250-34.on4.ontelecoms.gr [92.118.250.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BC3C3A68E7 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:03:32 -0700 (PDT) To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: 2 v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: v6ops-archive@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090427180333.4BC3C3A68E7@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

Ottho Heldringstraat 9, 85671 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 28 07:24:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A6E3A70C8 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:24:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.008 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.513, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vaexBeAYnZtm for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4103A6910 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lyo9b-0004FA-Rt for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:19:23 +0000 Received: from [192.100.122.233] (helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lyo9P-0004Dq-I1 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:19:17 +0000 Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n3SEIm9r018451; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:18:48 +0300 Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:18:35 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:18:22 +0300 Received: from NOK-AM1MHUB-05.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.9) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:18:22 +0200 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by NOK-AM1MHUB-05.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.9]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:18:22 +0200 From: To: , , CC: , , , Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:17:41 +0200 Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Thread-Index: Acm94LDbhPGzIm4HRiWyaNi4/b1q9wG67OsgAA5ZdaAAwXdusA== Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C964DF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2009 14:18:22.0792 (UTC) FILETIME=[300A6480:01C9C80C] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]=20 >Sent: 24 April, 2009 21:01 > >> I wonder why the minimum time >> could not be longer for IPv6? The longer the time the less need to=20 >> activate radio for keep-alive sending (on either side of the=20 >firewall=20 >> btw - consider a case where CPE has wireless WAN). In CGN case short=20 >> timeout is understandable due need to save public ports, but that=20 >> probably is not an issue in simple IPv6 firewall. So why=20 >e.g. not two=20 >> hours as for TCP? > >Two hours seems a long time to leave your door open. =20 True, but my main intent was to ask why the 2 minutes time period was chose= n, and not e.g. 100% longer of four minutes.=20 >A longer timeout could be negotiated between the the host and=20 >its CPE router using whatever protocol exists and becomes a=20 >defacto standard on IPv6 networks (e.g., draft-woodyatt-ald,=20 >UPnP IGD version 2). Good point - not only create pinholes for listen sessions, but also for out= going connections. Best regards, Teemu= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 28 07:53:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6053A70EF for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.479 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YGZ3caTyziml for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD9F3A70E6 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lyog0-00075B-Tw for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:52:52 +0000 Received: from [2001:418:1::81] (helo=nagasaki.bogus.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lyofi-00073G-Pl for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:52:45 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.233] (c-98-234-53-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.53.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3SEqTC2025366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:52:32 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <49F7182C.5000407@bogus.com> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:52:28 -0700 From: Joel Jaeggli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com CC: dwing@cisco.com, fred@cisco.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se, rbonica@juniper.net, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, jouni.korhonen@nsn.com Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C964DF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C964DF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/9298/Tue Apr 28 11:47:45 2009 on nagasaki.bogus.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ext Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] >> Sent: 24 April, 2009 21:01 >> >>> I wonder why the minimum time >>> could not be longer for IPv6? The longer the time the less need to >>> activate radio for keep-alive sending (on either side of the >> firewall >>> btw - consider a case where CPE has wireless WAN). In CGN case short >>> timeout is understandable due need to save public ports, Having multiple assumed possibilities for timeouts means as an application developer you can only use the lowest one, at least if you want your stuff to work. > but that >>> probably is not an issue in simple IPv6 firewall. So why >> e.g. not two >>> hours as for TCP? >> Two hours seems a long time to leave your door open. > > True, but my main intent was to ask why the 2 minutes time period was chosen, and not e.g. 100% longer of four minutes. > >> A longer timeout could be negotiated between the the host and >> its CPE router using whatever protocol exists and becomes a >> defacto standard on IPv6 networks (e.g., draft-woodyatt-ald, >> UPnP IGD version 2). > > Good point - not only create pinholes for listen sessions, but also for outgoing connections. > > Best regards, > > Teemu From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 28 10:37:55 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257EA28C221 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.239 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K3ia8UzXUn6P for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3101128C214 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LyrCZ-000Jo5-4q for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:34:39 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LyrCH-000JnM-JD for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:34:32 +0000 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D616961C488D; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 9E8A3280A3; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:34:20 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-a4bc4bb0000025f5-9c-49f73e1c8122 Received: from il0602f-dhcp171.apple.com (il0602f-dhcp171.apple.com [17.206.50.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 73ABE28086; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <1BE2A566-6D18-4154-886E-E93AC09B4FC8@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: Joel Jaeggli , IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <49F7182C.5000407@bogus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:34:20 -0700 References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C964DF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <49F7182C.5000407@bogus.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Apr 28, 2009, at 07:52, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ext Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] >>> Sent: 24 April, 2009 21:01 >>> >>>> I wonder why the minimum time could not be longer for IPv6? The >>>> longer the time the less need to activate radio for keep-alive >>>> sending (on either side of the firewall btw - consider a case >>>> where CPE has wireless WAN). In CGN case short timeout is >>>> understandable due need to save public ports, > > Having multiple assumed possibilities for timeouts means as an > application developer you can only use the lowest one, at least if > you want your stuff to work. All true. I copied the two-minute timer from RFC 4787 on the general idea that duplicating the filtering behavior of IPv4 NAT is the basic frame of what we're doing. >> Two hours seems a long time to leave your door open. > > True, but my main intent was to ask why the 2 minutes time period > was chosen, and not e.g. 100% longer of four minutes. I agree that a longer DEFAULT timeout for IPv6 state records may be more reasonable given that we don't have a port conservation problem caused by address amplification. I have no problem with four minutes. Longer than that, however, and I would object. Two hours is just completely out of the question for a connectionless transport. So, can the working group give me a more reasonable number to use in the -06 revision I'm composing today? Otherwise, I'll just increase it from two to four minutes, and we'll revisit in -07 if necessary. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 28 12:18:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7586B3A6FC8 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:18:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.385 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.890, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ed2cfpBv7voV for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AFB3A6D7F for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LysmD-0002lG-VQ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:15:33 +0000 Received: from [171.68.10.87] (helo=sj-iport-5.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lysm1-0002kC-4b for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:15:27 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,261,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="73717300" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2009 19:15:20 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3SJFK75024747; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:15:20 -0700 Received: from dhcp-171-70-228-116.cisco.com (dhcp-171-70-228-116.cisco.com [171.70.228.116]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3SJFKST022456; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:15:20 GMT Cc: Joel Jaeggli , IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: james woodyatt In-Reply-To: <1BE2A566-6D18-4154-886E-E93AC09B4FC8@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:15:19 -0700 References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C964DF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <49F7182C.5000407@bogus.com> <1BE2A566-6D18-4154-886E-E93AC09B4FC8@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=734; t=1240946120; x=1241810120; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 =20WGLC |Sender:=20; bh=Jp2d08PoF6oZXPM4loFXhZt95/799lbJEoTyV1gGcFs=; b=JtG+AJPSTrU0zwiwD5J1XFg9lvqpJFnRcj7ptZf00k1SEs7qHUFwtYe1Jn /hAu1EPpmQYYwWRNfdSXapJ86h0LB7mcgERVemA35HpZZAB6ZXLU0nvBqk9K 7mpIywy825; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: in this context, I think copying IPv4 expectations is reasonable. They are, after all, not really IPv4 expectations - they are how IPv4 systems are implemented having observed transports and applications that could ride on either. Those applications and transports won't complain about having longer timeouts from IPv6, but they're not likely to benefit much either, IMHO. On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:34 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > So, can the working group give me a more reasonable number to use in > the -06 revision I'm composing today? Otherwise, I'll just increase > it from two to four minutes, and we'll revisit in -07 if necessary. I would suggest leaving it the same and referencing the source RFC.