SV: SV: CPE Residential IPv6 Security Poll

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 9/25/2016 12:08 AM, erik.taraldsen at telenor.com wrote:
> 1) In theory you are right.  In practise it is not that black and
> white.  We never buy an excisting product, we buy an future product
> which has to be developed for us.  That include physical features
> which may not have beed release from Broadcom yet (11ac 3x3 we were
> the first mass order from Broadcom for example).  That means that we
> usualy have an development periode with the vendor, and a release
> target (VDSL launch for example)  Sometimes the have to rush the CPE
> side to meet the network side launch.  This again means that we
> usualy launch with a fair number of bug and un-optimized software,
> and features missing.  And since we don't buy in Comcast type volumes
> we don not have the purchasing power to instruct the vendors to do
> absolutly everything, we have an limited development team working for
> us and we have to prioritize what they should work on.  And so far
> UPnP has not gotten above that treshold.
>

Well there is an answer to that.  Instead of paying your development
team to do a from-scratch build, you can just have them port over
dd-wrt or openwrt.  Both of these router firmwares are most likely
tremendously advanced over anything your CPE development team can
come up with.

Also in the case of dd-wrt you can also pay the dd-wrt developer to
do this.  He has done it for other CPE vendors and will sign NDAs
and such if you are using hardware that is so precious that the
vendor won't release programming data for it.

>
> 2) You may have more luck with your forum posts, but on the norwegian
> forums the loudest answer wins the day. Reason cannot stand up to the
> forces of loud ignorance.
>

No, the post that WORKS always ends up winning.  You may not have the
last word on a blog but having the last word isn't a sign of winning.

> 3) As stated in 1, limited recources dictates that we prioritice
> security, features which support payable services, then the stuff we
> network geeks want.  And since I do know a lot of smaller ISP's and
> retailers of off-the-shelf products, I do know that those products do
> very seldom get anything other than bug fixes for anything other that
> flaws which may refelct badly on the CPE vendor.
>
> 4) The customers are paying for internet access.  That used to mean
> an ethernet port and two IPv4 addresses.  Today the costomers define
> it as wifi access on the phone in the room the furthest away from the
> router.  The level of knowledge in the user base is dropping like a
> stone.  If we can have an technical solutin which prevents the
> customer from having issues and calling us, we go for it.
>

There is no such solution because networking and the Internet is 
becoming more complex by the day.

I am sorry about this but there you have it.  The largest ISPs out there
are solving the support issue by basically offering no useable support,
the customer calls in, complains something doesn't work and is told
to go away and find someone else to help them.   These ISPs know that
no matter how angry the customer gets with a non-answer, that ultimately
the customer knows if they quit service and go to another large 
competitor that the other large competitor is going to treat them 
exactly the same way - so they don't benefit by quitting service.

I make a living today by fixing problems for people who have gotten 
non-answers from ISPs for their problems. (among other things)  I can 
tell you that more and more customers are figuring out that just like 
fixing a car, the manufacturer isn't going to train you how to fix your 
car you are going to have to take it to a garage and pay someone to fix 
it.  And yes I agree customer expectations have risen.   That is just
bringing the day closer that customers quit bothering the service 
providers with problems on their own network.  As a former DSL service
provider and a current e-mail service provider I can tell you that
this direction is really the best for both the customer and the
service provider.

Ted


>
> -Erik
>
>
> ________________________________________ Fra:
> ipv6-ops-bounces+erik.taraldsen=telenor.com at lists.cluenet.de<ipv6-ops-bounces+erik.taraldsen=telenor.com at lists.cluenet.de>
> på vegne av Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net> Sendt: 20. september
> 2016 18:52 Til: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de Emne: Re: SV: CPE
> Residential IPv6 Security Poll
>
> Erik,
>
> I think you have to follow these precepts (keep in mind this is an
> American capitalist perspective not a European cooperative socialist
> perspective)
>
> 1) You got the money, tell your vendors to either do what you want
> (put IPv6 UPnP in CPEs they sell you) or you are going to kick their
> ass. It's your money!  They want your money do they not?  That's why
> they are selling CPEs to you - so why do you tolerate any crap from
> them?  Tell them either put UPnP in the code or your going elsewhere
> for your CPEs and you are going to tell all your other ISP friends to
> go elsewhere for their CPEs.   Enough Mr. Nice Guy.
>
> 2) It's not your problem if Ma&  Pa Kettle find a wannabe power
> user. If you don't like being bad-mouthed by wannabe power users on
> the online forums then get your ass on the online forums and start
> engaging. Refute those "need bigger antennas" posts with logic and
> reason. I guarantee to you that 1 correct post is worth 100 baloney
> posts from wannabe power users.
>
> 3) How on Earth can you make the case that your ISP router patches
> security holes and adds features yet turn around and claim that you
> can't push your CPE vendors to add UPnP support?   Either you have
> power to get your CPE vendors to issue updates or not.  If you do -
> then quit complaining that no CPE's have UPnP support for IPv6.  If
> you don't - then quit claiming your CPE is better.
>
> 4) What is your customers perception that they are paying for and
> what are they REALLY paying for?   If they think they are paying for
> access only - and you think they are paying for access plus your
> management of their network CPE - then I can see why you might be
> wondering why they aren't complaining to you when there's a problem
> and going to the wannabe power users.  Maybe you just need to do
> some more customer education?
>
> Ted
>
> On 9/20/2016 1:24 AM, erik.taraldsen at telenor.com wrote:
>> With all due respect to the actual power user out there.  For each
>> one of them, there is at least 20 who think they are power users
>> who base their knowledge on rumors and misconceptions.   They are
>> often vocal (forums and coments on news sites) and they are the
>> once who often are enlisted to help Ma&   Pa Kettle.  At least that
>> is what we see a lot of in Norway.  They simply do not have the
>> ability to correctly diagnose the issues.  Solutions often involve
>> "you need bigger antennas on the router", "Apple routers are
>> allways the best", "the ISP supplied router allways suck".
>>
>> So Bob-the-power-user buy the expencive huge antenna router and
>> install at M&PK.  It does not have dual stack, therefore the
>> application at M&PK therefore never tries IPv6 and the older UPnP
>> solution works for them.  Bob gets an re confrimation that big
>> antenas helps, and that the ISP router sucks.  Where a simpler and
>> cheeper solution would be to modify the firewall settings of the
>> ISP router.
>>
>> Since I reprecent the ISP and spesificaly the ISP supplied router
>> (where we do patch security flaws, add features, optimise DSL and
>> wlan drivers, attack bufferbloat and give the customers the
>> posibility of remote support.  Unlike a lot of retail products
>> which often have to live with the software it was shiped with).
>> How do we set up the routers IPv6 setting in such a way that
>> Bob-the-power-user do not have to be called in by M&PK to fix their
>> broken app/network, but still maintain a level of security for
>> them?  Is some sort of balanced the way to go?  Should we again
>> push our vendors for PCP/UPnP support?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Erik
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________ Fra:
>> ipv6-ops-bounces+erik.taraldsen=telenor.com at lists.cluenet.de<ipv6-ops-bounces+erik.taraldsen=telenor.com at lists.cluenet.de>
>> på vegne av Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net> Sendt: 19. september
>> 2016 23:23 Til: Bjørn Mork Kopi: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de Emne:
>> Re: CPE Residential IPv6 Security Poll
>>
>> I can tell you that -today- in my location both CenturyLink and
>> Comcast (giant ISPs) supply IPv6 by default on their residential
>> CPEs - and both of those CPEs have "inbound block outbound allow"
>> on by default on IPv6. As far as I know neither support UPnP on
>> IPv6
>>
>> I think you are overthinking this.  If a CPE has no IPv6 support
>> but it has UPnP support over IPv4 then things "work"   If a CPE has
>> IPv6 support but no UPnP support over IPv6, then things are also
>> going to "work" - on IPv4.  They may break on IPv6 with a "block
>> everything" IPv6 rule in which case the end user is undoubtedly
>> going to complain to the toaster manufacturer not you, and that
>> toaster maker is either going to tell their customer "disable ipv6
>> on your ISP CPE" or they are going to fix their toaster so that it
>> doesn't try using UPnP over IPv6, only IPv4.
>>
>> Your job is to not assume your customers are all morons.  It is to
>> make it safe for the ones who are, and make it usable for the ones
>> who aren't and want to run their own show.  Provide the needed
>> buttons in the CPE to enable or disable IPv6 and to allow your
>> customers to shut off your CPE's interference and be done with it.
>>
>> As an ISP you of all people should understand how powerful the
>> Internet is.  If you make your stuff configurable for power users,
>> and document it, then the Ma&   Pa Kettle customers are going to
>> engage their friend's son who IS a power user and can search the
>> Internet and follow simple directions and fix their problem with
>> their web cam or whatever it is that is demanding UPnP.
>>
>> If however you default to open, then when Ma&   Pa Kettle
>> eventually get cracked, and call in the power user, that power user
>> is going to discover your default firewall on IPv6 is open and
>> realize that you created a huge whole bunch of work for him since
>> he will now have to put back together a PC for the morons.   He
>> isn't going to appreciate that and will badmouth you online.
>>
>> Nobody with brains is going to go online and badmouth an ISP that
>> supplies a CPE that has defaults that error on the side of
>> protection-of-morons.   But they are going to badmouth an ISP that
>> supplies a CPE that has defaults that allow morons to get easily
>> broken into - because it's them who are going to be sucked into
>> putting those systems back together.  And they are really going to
>> badmouth an ISP that supplies a CPE that can't have it's internal
>> firewall turned off.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On 9/19/2016 1:29 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>>> Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>    writes:
>>>
>>>> This kind of mirrors the "default" security policy on IPv4 CPEs
>>>> (since those CPE's have NAT automatically turned on which
>>>> creates a "block in, permit out" kind of approach.) so I'm not
>>>> sure why you would want to default it to being different for
>>>> IPv6.
>>>
>>> I was explained one reason today: No CPEs implement UPnP support
>>> for IPv6 [1].
>>>
>>> This makes the effect of the similar IPv4 and IPv6 policies
>>> quite different.  UPnP aware applications will set up the
>>> necessary NAT rules for IPv4, allowing inbound connections etc.
>>> But if you want the same applications to work over IPv6, then the
>>> policy must be more open by default. Letting the user disable
>>> IPv6 filtering is not going to help the masses I'm afraid...
>>>
>>> So the question remains: What do ISPs actually do to - allow
>>> IPv6, and - secure the end users' networks, and - not break dual
>>> stack applications wanting incoming connections
>>>
>>> all at the same time?  Looks like a classical "pick any two".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bjørn
>>>
>>> [1] I'm sure someone will come up with an obscure and expensive
>>> example of the contrary - the point is that IPv6 UPnP support is
>>> not readily available in the residential CPE market.
>>
>> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>> software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>
> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus