[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Security Module for shim6 or hip really
El 31/07/2006, a las 12:14, Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:
On 31-jul-2006, at 9:31, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
First, it is customary to require a mandatory to implement
security mechanism for IETF specs. Without this, there will be very
little interoperability. But it doesn't rule out pluggable security
mechanisms, just that one of them has to be mandatory.
Well, if people feel the patent issues with CGA/HBA are such that they
can't implement those, should we prohibit them from implementing shim6
altoghether? That doesn't make too much sense...
moreover, i think it would be interesting to understand how the
protocol would behave, if for instance, one end supports only HBA and
the other end only supports CGA (or other two different security
mechanisms)
And: it's possible that an implementation supports a certain security
mechanism for authenticating its own stuff but not for checking the
authentication of the other side,
i am not following this...
a host don't need security to check its own locator set, we assume that
it has some local means to verify which its own locators are... (but i
guess this is not what you were thinking about...)
so afaict, a host only need security means to verify the peers locator
set
or the other way around. So we need to exchange capabilities for both
send and receive.
(the reception of packet is done solely based on the context tag, so
it doesn't matter which source locator is used).
I don't like this assumption...
why not? this results in similar security that the current
non-multihomed-IP and it simplifies considerably the processing of
incoming packets...
perhaps one option would be to include something like the Locator
List Option in the ack message where the receiver of the update
message can ack each locator separately and also specify the reason
why it doesn't ack a given locator (including a code for validation
method not supported)
Does it make sense to have different authentication mechanisms for
different locators?
well, i think so
suppose you have a CGA/HBA address
you can use the HBA mechanisms to move among a stable set of locators
and you can use the CGA method to add new locators that were not
present initially to the locator set
Regards, marcelo
Iljitsch