Subject: [OPSEC] Reminder: Please review draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:05:23 -0400

Dear OpSec WG,

This is a reminder to review draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-03 -- The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only/

This has been presented a number of time, and has gotten some in person discussion. This means that it shouldn't take very long to review -- this means that you can get brownie points for reviewing, without having to spend a bunch of time….

W

-- 
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.  
    -- J.R.R. Tolkien

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:32:31 -0300

Hi, Warren,

I can review the I.D. Quick question: what's the desired deadline for
reviews?

Thanks!

Best regards,
Fernando

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:38:37 -0400

> I can review the I.D. Quick question: what's the desired deadline for

Thank you, kind sir…

April 2nd would be great…

W

-- 
"Does Emacs have the Buddha nature? Why not? It has bloody well everything else..."

---

From: Rama Darbha <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:31:01 -0400

Warren,

This document looks good. Given its scope, there aren't many changes 
required.

There is one section that I found a bit confusing. In section 2.1, the 
document states:
"These link-local addresses SHOULD be hard-coded to prevent the change
    of EUI-64 addresses when changing of MAC address (such as after
    changing a network interface card)."

This means that this document recommends configuring static LLA addresses.

Then in section 2.2, the document states an advantage is:
"   Lower configuration complexity: LLAs require no specific
    configuration (except when they are statically configured), thereby
    lowering the complexity and size of router configurations. This also
    reduces the likelihood of configuration mistakes."

I understand the difference between these two statements, but we should 
be more explicit in explaining why we recommend static LLA but then 
discuss the benefits of using non-static LLA addressing. Fundamentally, 
we are stating that we should configure static LLA, but in case we don't 
we have an advantage that the configuration complexity is less. I would 
recommend you tie these two pieces of information together in a more 
directed statement in section 2.2. For example:
"  Lower configuration complexity: Commonly, LLAs require no specific
    configuration and are generated automatically using eui-64 format, 
thereby
    lowering the complexity and size of router configurations. This also
    reduces the likelihood of configuration mistakes.  But as noted 
above, static LLA configuration is recommended to prevent the change of 
MAC address when changing hardware."

This is reiterated in section 2.5, when it states:
"It [using LLA addresses] also simplifies router configurations."

It would be good to include that this only occurs when not using static 
LLA addresses, thought it is not recommended.

Otherwise, I think the document is clean and clearly addresses its goal.

Regards,
Rama

-- 
Rama Darbha, CCIE #28006
919-574-5071
[email-masked]
Cisco TAC - Security Solutions
RTP, NC, USA
Hours: 8h30 - 17h00 (EST)

http://www.cisco.com/tac