Subject: RE: [rfc2461bis] Security issues

From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:40:53 -0400

Sorry, I forgot to reply to one point.

 > I thought 2461 explicitly did not apply to point to point links or
 > point-to-point like links such as cellphones, and other 
 > links that were NBMA
 > (speaking of which, I suppose the actual NBMA technology has 
 > been worked out
 > by now, so the statement in Section 1 paragraph 2 about NBMA 
 > being FFS might
 > be obsolete and, if so, could be replaced by a reference to 
 > the RFC where
 > that is described).

=> You're referring to the following paragraph:

   Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP
   over a particular link type) this document applies to all link types.
   However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of its
   services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA links)
   alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those services will
   be specified (in the appropriate document covering the operation of
   IP over a particular link type).  The services described in this
   document that are not directly dependent on multicast, such as
   Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor Unreachability Detection,
   etc., are expected to be provided as specified in this document.

=> So far there is no explicit prohibition on ND on NBMA links.
It leaves the door open for future tweeks if needed.

   The
   details of how one uses ND on NBMA links is an area for further
   study.

=> Perhaps this statement can be made clearer. I assume that
it is referring to applying some form of multicast to 
NBMA links? Perhaps Erik or Thomas can shed some light
on the intention here. 
I can put some reference to 3314 and 3316 as examples for
using ND in a cellular point-to-point-like link.

Hesham

 > 
 > The discussion of IPsec in Section 11.2 looks fine.
 > 

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:56:38 -0700

Yes, that's what I was wondering about. Considering 2641 was published in
1998, I would think that the NBMA situation would have been worked out by
now. So 2641bis could include a reference to the RFC describing how to do ND
on NBMA links, or, if there is no longer a question about using 2641
directly on NBMA links, as perhaps 3314 and 3316 indicate, then references
to those.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:40 PM
Subject: RE: [rfc2461bis] Security issues

   The

Hesham

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is
strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the
sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:04:52 -0400

So, I think some time may need to be spent looking at RFC 2491
which is "IPv6 over NBMA".  Another pertinent document may be
RFC 2590.

Brian

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:17:27 -0700 (PDT)

> NBMA links? Perhaps Erik or Thomas can shed some light

When the document was written the IPv6 over NBMA didn't exist yet (RFC 2491).

It might make sense to add an informative reference to that work.

FWIW RFC 2491 basically says that a NBMA supports IPv6 by using RFC 2022 (MARS)
which emulates multicast; thus from IP's perspective it isn't a non-broadcast
network any more even though the L2 itself is non-broadcast.

  Erik