Re: Fwd: [Full-disclosure] IPv6 security myths

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Fernando Gont wrote:

> IPsec is a
> "SHOULD" (rather than a "MUST") in the latest node-reqs-bis document

Too late, too little.

> [....]
>> For the end to end security, only the end systems requiring the
>> security are required to deploy mechanisms for the security,
>> which means it is not necessary to mandate all the end systems
>> deploy some security protocol.
> 
> Sorry, I couldn't parse this paragraph. Could you clarify this one?

In general, applications determine which security mechanism to use.
Configurable boxes can install IPsec when applications requiring
IPsec is installed. Unconfigurable boxes with fixed applications
may or may not have IPsec depending on preinstalled applications.

So, IPsec, or any other security mechanism, should be purely
optional.

Note that security mechanisms, anyway, need configuration of
passwords etc.

BTW, IPsec was mandated in IPv6 with the discussion that ICMPv6,
regarded as an application, could be secured by IPsec, which,
of course, is untrue. People tend to think PKI works magically.

						Masataka Ohta

PS

Port restricted IPv4, including end to end NAT, is transparent
to IPsec, as long as SPI can be regarded as port numbers.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]