Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-04.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Joe Abley wrote:
...
> >>
> >> 4. Security Considerations
> >>
> >>    A multihomed site should not be more vulnerable to security
> >> breaches
> >>    than a traditionally IPv4-multihomed site.
> >
> > Should we add "or a single-homed IPv6 site"?
> 
> Is that reasonable? Or does the addition of an entry-point to a
> single-homed site make it inherently more vulnerable, in some small way?
> 
> In response to some other private feedback, I also added the following
> sentence to the security section:
> 
>      <t>Any changes to routing practices made to accommodate multihomed
>        sites should not cause non-multihomed sites to become more
>        vulnerable to security breaches.</t>
> 
> Comments on that would be appreciated.

I think that is good. I'll certainly concede to you and Sean
on my own suggestion, but I fear we will get pushback from
the IESG if we produce a solution that does weaken security.

    Brian