[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: HIP and PKI reqs [RE: Identifier/locator recap]



But it is possible.  We needn't forsake DNS entirely...

Eliot


Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Pekka Nikander wrote:


Uhh, no.  HIP requires either DNSsec or opportunistic key distribution a
la SSH.

Opportunistic key distribution a la SSH works pretty well.

It works a lot less well if you don't have local storage to keep the
keys, or if node A wants to refer node B to node C.

The problem I see with HIP is that you can't initiate a session with
just the identifier to identify the host you want to communicate with.
Now that would be fine if it were possible to feed this identifier to a
lookup engine and get back something you _can_ use to initiate a
session. But this isn't possible either. So effectively the HIP
identifier serves no identifying purpose.


Summary:  HIP without DNSsec or PKI can provide security
for mobility and/or multi-homing that is acceptable according
to the current security requirements.

Cool. Now if only it could provide functionality...

Note that I'm not anti-HIP. I'm sure there are problems that can be
solved by HIP. But it can't be a general solution for multihoming as it
only moves the problem to a different area.

Iljitsch