Re: [6lowpan] "cry out loud" vs. "white board"

Hi Carsten:

Many good points:

1) current SeND is not compatible with the RFC 4944 compression

2) current SeND is unrealistic on motes, mostly due to the CPU cost of
computing a CGA address
    But since the cga address is computed based on the public key it
would be possible for the white board could do the CGA work as part of
the registration process.

3) with white board, NA is proxied. So a proxy SeND is required, as
documented in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4389 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daley-send-spnd-prob-02

RFC still in the oven but work exists: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-cgaext-proxy-send-00

4) Could a "white board" in turn be useful for coordinating security?
You need to answer that one. There are certainly interesting properties
there.

5) How to get rid of the single point of failure?
This is usually left to vendors, HSRP, VRRP or else. Note that the BbR
is not on the way for intra LoWPAN data exchange, just lookup. It can
die and restart but it's better if it can persist the caches.

What do you think?

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org]
>Sent: mardi 18 mars 2008 18:06
>To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>Cc: Carsten Bormann; 6lowpan
>Subject: Re: [6lowpan] "cry out loud" vs. "white board"
>
>Pascal,
>
>the security properties of the ND protocol are well understood, so
>that SEND was developed to improve them.
>What would be a good security model for the "white board" approach?
>Could a "white board" in turn be useful for coordinating security?
>How to get rid of the single point of failure?
>
>Gruesse, Carsten

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan