[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Renumbering... ACLs etc.
More precisely: in a loc/id solution, just filtering on the id is
insufficient. One can emulate the previous (insecure) semantics by
filtering on the (loc, id) tuple.
Filtering on locators alone, even in a locator/ID split solution,
would actually be sufficient to emulate return-routability-flavor
security. There is no extra benefit in additionally including the ID
in the filter unless the ID was unspoofable. However, if the ID was
unspoofable, then there would be no reason to include the locator in
It goes back to what you were saying earlier: Any remote information
can be reliably filtered upon if and only if it is unspoofable.
Highly desirable would, of course, be a solution that allows filtering
exclusively based on IDs. The benefits would be easier mobility and
multi-homing support, as well as simpler renumbering. Yet finding a
solution that enables such filtering in a secure way is hard.
Worthwhile to note: By "unspoofable" above I mean securely verifiable
on a per-packet basis. This is substantially harder than host-to-host
verifiability. E.g., a HIP host identity tag is cryptographically
verifiable by the communicating hosts, but it cannot be securely
verified by filters (or other middleboxes).
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg