Subject: Re: [OPSEC] draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages - clarifying questions from the IESG.

From: Qiong <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:51:14 +0800

Hi all,

Here is some of my considerations on the second question.

I think the problem described in this document is different from that of
split tunneling. Some reasons below:
1) It describes a compromise of a VPN.
2) It results from a particular interaction between both IP protocol
families.

Hope it clarifies. Thanks.

Best wishes

-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institute

Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/>*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/> *
===============================================

From: OPSEC [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of joel jaeggli
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:57 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; opsec
chairs
Subject: [OPSEC] draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages - clarifying questions from
the IESG.

Hi,

I hope that you folks are recovering well from IETF meeting related
excesses and accompanying travel.

Some questions came up in the IESG review of the document that are more
appropriately answered by the working group rather than by me attempting to
channel you folks.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages/

1. Does the working-group view view disabling IPV6 in deployed equipment
due to operational necessity as a desirable outcome.

2. Does the working-group characterize the problem of vpn leakages captured
in this document as being distinct from the problems posed by split-tunnels
in general.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.
joel